Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

There is a position called "cheap grace" which is decried by a large swath of Protestantism as overemphasizing salvation by grace in a way that is even permissive about sin.We still have to emphasize that salvation is a free gift because as discussions like this show it is easily confused and lost. Ringo for instance. And most of what Archer has said although now he's taking a different tack.Justification is a free gift, and growth in the faith is also through Christ but that is where we have to work, having to actively mortify sin and the flesh, actively put aside the lusts of the flesh, actively take thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ, actively live by His teachings, actively pursue whatever calling is on our lives. The work we do in these ways builds on our free salvation.

I went the opposite direction. I'd never been in a KJV-only church, everybody I knew had one or another of the modern translations, the NASB being the most recommended. It was only after I started reading up on the history of the changes from the KJV to the modern translations, all based on a few Greek manuscripts that came to prominence in the 19th century, one in particular, Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in the mid-19th century, that I began to smell a rat. This particular manuscript cast doubt on the tradition behind the KJV, the Greek manuscripts collectively known as the Textus Receptus . Sinaiticus is now regarded as the oldest and therefore the most authentic text and on the basis of its readings, which leave out a lot of familiar passages, the KJV has been criticized as having added material that wasn't in the original, and most churches today accept this view of things although it brings the Bible itself into doubt.After reading the book The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon, a contemporary of the committee that revised the KJV based on those "new" manuscripts, I switched to the KJV because of his very convincing arguments that the "new" manuscripts are corrupt.I'm not a "KJV-only" of the sort that thinks that particular translation was somehow directly inspired by God, but I'm functionally KJV-only in that I know it's the only version that has not been altered by the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts. The New King James is supposed to be based on the KJV texts too, but it has been corrupted in other ways.This is a huge topic and I have a blog on it I started some years ago I call "The Great Bible Hoax of 1881." I believe it is just one of the ways that the Church has been deceived as we approach the end days.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think this misrepresents the issues involved. "Feeling superior" has nothing to do with Protestant objections to Catholic or JW doctrine. JWs aren't Christians in any sense at all because they deny the Deity of Christ, impute angelic status to him. Jesus Himself said that if we do not believe that He is God we will die in our sins. It is important to steer people away from a doctrine that will lead them to Hell, this has nothing to do with "feeling superior." And as for Catholicism the evidence is clear that most Catholics are not trusting in Christ but in their Church or other extraneous things, and also need to be warned that they are on the wrong path, again nothing to do with "feeling superior" but in fact sincerely wishing to save people.Working in a soup kitchen, contributing to charities and doing other good works is a really good thing to do of course. Most churches have ministries of good works and most Christians serve in them. But if it's all being done by people who aren't saved they are sadly deceived and need to be shown the way to salvation.

Have you read the anathemas of Trent? I'll go find them and post them if necessary.Catholicism does NOT support the idea of salvation by faith alone at all, it is always Faith Plus Works, not Works following Faith but Faith AND Works together. Which I've affirmed all along, you have no cause to call me a liar. Not at my age in my physical condition they wouldn't, and you have no idea what I used to do when I was able to do it. My works now are pretty much confined to the internet, thankless task though it is. And prayer. That's something one can always do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not a liar. Catholicism, as testified by everything I have ever read or heard, is a method of salvation by works and not faith alone. Faith plus works if you want, but that's the same thing as salvation by works. This is standard Protestant teaching, and you have no cause to call me or any Protestant or ex-Catholic a liar for affirming this teaching.Here's a short list of the anathemas of Trent against the doctrines of the Reformation. The actual list of anathemas is very long.

I'm familiar with the lists of Trent so no I didn't read this particular page. Is there something in particular you think I wouldn't object to?

Fine, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus considered to be oldest complete mss. Both of them corrupt according to Dean Burgon. Unfortunately it's either a forgery or an early gnostic corruption. But it is sufficiently different from the Textus Receptus to call one or the rother into question, and of course since the scholars like the older one and consider it authentic they treat the KJV as the inferior. Some 30 000 corrections and errors I believe are reported to grace its forged or gnostically corrupt pages as reported at that site? I didn't say it was the only basis for today's NT, just that it is part of all the new translations, by being included in the Critical Texts. Making the huge mistake of thinking most ancient means most authentic. And besides, they are just guessing at its age, they haven't even subjected it to Carbon 14. It's a red flag. If the passages are not in the Alexandrian texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and others) but are in the (thousands of) Greek manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus that underlie the KJV, this becomes an excuse to say the Textus Receptus was altered and added to. I think it's the other way around, the Alexandrians left them out. Which is the sort of unfair denigration those men have been subjected to, and sillier than most, thanks to the Alexandrians, which they did not deserve. Most of them had been raised from childhood learning Greek and Hebrew, which is not something you can say for today's Bible scholars; and they also had a fine grasp of English which has earned admiration for the KJV for its 400 years, swhile today's translations are often klutzy and ugly; and they were serious believers in the Bible as God's word, which you also can't say of some of today's Bible scholars, such as Bruce Metzger.Those "late texts" amount to something like 5000 texts in various sized fragments, as compared to a paltry few for the Alexandrians, and they are "late" only in that they have survived from the tenth century, the earlier mss from which they were copied having been destroyed by the ravages of time and usage. Which is in fact an indictment of Sinaiticus. If a complete ms survived intact from the 4th century it means it wasn't used, and why might that be? Because it was recognized as corrupt most likely. Corrupt documents, and the KJV translators were excellent scholars, very probably superior to today's. When people see the differences between the two sets of mss they naturally have doubts about the authenticity of the Bible. Bart Ehrman is one who has made a very big deal out of the unreliability of the Bible because of these differences.____Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for the apology, but including works as part of salvation at all is attributing something to us rather than all of it to God, which is what salvation by grace alone means. Trent often affirms faith AND works in their denunciation of the Reformation solasABE: Why do you suppose the Reformers emphasized "alone" anyway? Because they objected to the addition of works to faith in the RCC. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone by scripture alone and to God be all the glory. NO works, none.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, our faith too is a gift of God, it's in one of the quotes I gave back upthread somewhere. But only on the foundation of salvation, not as a way to salvation. Which we do on the basis of our salvation. They are entirely different. One saves you and then you go to work; the other makes works part of what saves you. If they were the same the Reformers would not have gone to such lengths to emphasize that faith is "alone" and grace and Christ and the scripture. No, but no commentator is, all are going to be found to have flaws. We are talking about the specific doctrines of the Reformation and on that they are unexcelled. The Council of Trent's anathemas target those doctrines on the basis of the Faith Plus Works the Reformers rejected. Oh no doubt, but remember we are talking about THE doctrines of the Refomation, not areas where they may have erred. You can read a long way in both Luther and Calvin before finding something to object to in my experience.

Oh they won't accept it, they rationalize away all the scriptures that show He is God, and actually it's possible to understand a great deal of what He says as claiming that.In this case I'm specifically thinking of John 8:24 and 8:58 where Jesus calls himself the "I AM" which is the name for God in the OT. All the commentators say this is what He meant, but of course the JWs aren't going to accept it -- I've tried. And for reference here's the JF&B commentary on these verses: I included 8:59 above which says the Jews picked up stones to throw at him, which the commentators regard as proof they knew Jesus was claiming to be God. Then they also mention John 5:18 which is another proof: You may get further with the JWs with this verse which says directly that He made himself equal with God. But they are very good at twisting the scripture in my experience.The Jews would have understood from the OT that the Messiah was to be God in the flesh ("God our righteousness" and "Wonderful counselor Mighty God" among others) so Jesus claiming it is part of what they would expect of the Messiah, except of course they refuse to believe it of Him.I personally like Isaiah 48:11 for dealing with JWs: You can quote this and then quote John 17 where Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him "with the glory which I had with you in the beginning." If God will not give His glory to "another" and yet Jesus asks for that glory and claims to have had it, then Jesus is not "another" but God Himself.================== Not if it's the truth. The only thing that matters is whether they meet the scripture's definition of a Christian. If they consider themselves to be Christians by anything other than faith alone in Christ alone they are very likely not saved. But adding that requirement damns them, NN, can't you see that? Is it "feeling superior" to try to tell them they are deceived?You say "do too little" as if that could be a problem for salvation, but as the Reformers said we have NOTHING to contribute to our salvation at ALL, quoting scripture that says "lest any man should boast." In other words, according to scripture, boasting or "feeling superior" is a product of believing you yourself contribute anything to your salvation, quite the opposite of what you are saying. Any addition of anything of ours is an affront to God. Luther said all we contribute to our salvation is our sins.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you may be confused. The Codex is the one that's corrupted, in lots of ways including all those corrections.If you are slamming King James, most of what is said about him is lies. He was a good Christian king, that's no doubt why. People who have researched him have found out he's been smeared ferociously. Yes he believed in the divine right of kings, wrongly I believe, but he had next to nothing to do with the KJV.

Where are you getting that slander against King James? What source?That sounds like the Inquisition though, they were definitely sadists.The Codex isn't Christian at all, it's corrupt. It was "discovered" in a monastery at Mt. Sinai. It was rejected by the Church until the end of the 19th century when some apostate revisers decided to make use of it. You really obviously don't know what you are talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes that is a lie too. I did a blog post on this subject a while back, featuring a talk by a pastor who had done some research into King James I. He based most of it on a book by a Stephen Coston who did years of research, and here is something Coston wrote on the bad scholarship on King James that he discovered in his research.

"Christians tinkered with it." What are you talking about? The Codex is probably a forgery, certainly corrupt by whatever method, Christians didn't use it at all ever, let alone "tinker with it" and it wasn't even known until the 19th century and then it got incorporated into all the modern Bibles.I guess I missed your reference to James' book on Demonology. I'm going to have to see what I can find about that now. Please see the post I just wrote to Theodoric about how James I has been slandered by his biographers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say nothing at all about the context of the quotes in the book about demonology. Sounds to me like he's describing something he witnessed. He apparently did attend some trials of witches.So I found an online copy of his book here and found that it is written in the form of a dialogue.And searching with a couple of your terms did not find that passage in this copy.Here's a whole website dedicated to King James: King James I of England (VI of Scotland) Page Edited by Faith, : No reason given.