The Lord's Parables

[socalscout]

good works?

Am I oversimplifying this? Why would Christ go through the trouble of telling parables depicting good works and also give the two greatest Commandments if he did not want us to actually DO THEM.

Correct me if I am wrong, but saved by Faith alone means as long as you accept Christ as your personal Savior then you are saved regardless of your sins, right? Well if I decide to break His Commandment by not loving my neighbor as myself then I would still go to Heaven by that logic. Let’s go further, why would Christ tell us to go and sin no more if his Sacrifice made our sins moot?

Do I not understand Sole Fide? Am I missing something because I rarely see these arguments used in debates against Sole Fide? James and Paul are always used as proof. Clue me in please.

[missionseeker]

hehehe!
You TOTALLY used the right arguments. I had a guy who believed this tell me he could shoot me then shoot himself and go STRAIGHT to heaven because he was "saved"

[Norseman82]

Welcome to the wonderful messy world of "dispensationalist theology"!

Background: "dispensationalism" was pushed by a 19th-century British clergyman named Roger (?) Darby. Although I am no expert in all their beliefs, from what I do know, "dispensationalists" believe in different "dispensations", aka "eras" in salvation history. If I remember this correctly, Christ's death ushered in a new dispensation of "grace". Therefore, according to them, what Jesus said prior to His death no longer is applicable since "we are now under grace" or "it doesn't apply to Christians" (believe it or not, I've seen that argument used to justify Christian divorce/remarriage despite what Christ said regarding divorce + remarriage = adultery!!).

BTW, where have you been?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='missionseeker' date='Sep 27 2005, 12:34 AM']hehehe!
You TOTALLY used the right arguments. I had a guy who believed this tell me he could shoot me then shoot himself and go STRAIGHT to heaven because he was "saved"
[right][snapback]738749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Some who are of the OSAS (once saved always saved) school of thought would argue that the guy was never saved in the first place.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='socalscout' date='Sep 25 2005, 02:25 AM']good works?

Am I oversimplifying this? Why would Christ go through the trouble of telling parables depicting good works and also give the two greatest Commandments if he did not want us to actually DO THEM.

Correct me if I am wrong, but saved by Faith alone means as long as you accept Christ as your personal Savior then you are saved regardless of your sins, right? Well if I decide to break His Commandment by not loving my neighbor as myself then I would still go to Heaven by that logic. Let’s go further, why would Christ tell us to go and sin no more if his Sacrifice made our sins moot?

Do I not understand Sole Fide? Am I missing something because I rarely see these arguments used in debates against Sole Fide? James and Paul are always used as proof. Clue me in please.
[right][snapback]736962[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
socalscout!! I've wondered what ever became of you. How has life been??

God bless you sir.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='missionseeker' date='Sep 26 2005, 11:34 PM']hehehe!
You TOTALLY used the right arguments. I had a guy who believed this tell me he could shoot me then shoot himself and go STRAIGHT to heaven because he was "saved"
[right][snapback]738749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 27 2005, 09:52 PM']Some who are of the OSAS (once saved always saved) school of thought would argue that the guy was never saved in the first place.
[right][snapback]739641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But the guy (up untill he shot someone, then himself) thought he was saved. The OSAS argument assures us salvation. If you think you are saved, but are not, then assured salvation doesn't exist, thus OSAS is an invalid argument.

[tojo]

It's rather complicated, different Protestants have different opinions on the matter, and all their views have wholes in them; here's one of those views (not dispesationalistic):

The death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, provided the perfect atoning sacrifice for the our sins. You are (saved; justified) made right with God by trusting completely (having faith alone) in that atonement for your salvation, and only in that, and nothing else whatsoever. The ability to completely trust in Jesus for salvation is a gift of grace from God, a gift He will never take away, so one should never become unsaved.

Now the catch is, that complete trust in the death of Jesus to perfectly atone for our sins is based upon of your own sinfulness and Christ's perfection, and Christ's Godhead and Lordship. In shorty, why Christ's death perfectly atones for sins is because of who He is. Recognition of who He is a gift of grace necessary to obtain His salvation.

So how is that a catch? If you completely trust that the death of Christ can and does atone for your sins since He was and is the perfect Lord God, then you would necessarily must realize that He is Lord, he is the boss, and His ways are perfect. Therefore, anyone who comes to completely trust in Christ as Savior, and thus obtain salvation, would simultaneaously come to trust completely in Him as Lord, and spend the rest of their life attempting to (do good works) follow His ways an dbecome more like Him (be sanctified).

Now, let me make it clear that I am a formerly evangelical Protestant convert TO Catholicism, I am not teaching or recommending this view. It has holes in it, I am aware of this.... while I would be glad to do my best to answer questions about this view, I do not wish to be cross-examined, as i don't personally believe in thsi anymore.