At the risk of being snotty, I actually have academic background in this area. And in fact, Putin, if you want to have a serious conversation, you'd have to recognize that there are elements of "event" and "process" in way that Protestants and Catholics understand salvation. On both sides, the more people understand, they more nuanced they get.

I know lots of Catholics who believe that salvation is an event--you get baptized and then you're saved. Even more common is the belief that salvation and non-salvation are events: you get saved at baptism, sin and lose your salvation, then confess your sins and get your salvation back. Lots of Protestants who believe the same thing.

When I was Catholic, I found that about half the people I knew were missing the point, and thought of heaven as a goal to work for. When I became Protestant, I had this idea that people belonging to churches that taught "faith not works" would be different. But in fact, about half the Protestants I meet also think of heaven as a goal to work for. I don't see any evidence that a person's theology of salvation has much impact on their spiritual life. In every church, some people get it and some don't.

@Thucy: you need to realize that a lot of Christian theology is really an attempt to work out a compromise with the Enlightenment. For example, "literal interpretation" (in the sense that every verse has one clear meaning that can, in principle, be understood) is a modern idea. Paul (trained in Jewish Biblical interpretation) actually laughs off literal interpretation (1 Cor 9:3-11). The idea that Jesus' power is proved by his miracles is another Enlightenment idea. Even in Acts, there are several people who do wonders without God's help, and miracle stories were all over the place. Later accounts of miracles and exorcisms make it clear that something was happening--you can get a sense of this from "Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity" by Peter Brown, or several other of his books. It makes absolutely no sense to treat the miracles of Jesus as inventions added on to a historical record.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people don't understand that historical knowledge grows like other knowledge. When people argue about the history of religion by using ideas that have been discredited for over a century, they're like "creation scientists" who use obsolete and marginal data with the illusion that you're participating in scholarship.

If this response is based on the idea that there is a great deal of nuance within the rainbow of Protestantism (and Catholicism) about these matters, ok, fine - fair point.. Protestantism is too inchoate to easily make any generalizations. But some simplification is necessary in order to make sense of the broad commonalities within a belief system or 'tendency' as Protestantism is barely a belief system, since every individual is empowered with the ability to master the Bible as a kind of legal text, detached from tradition or history. With everybody declaring themselves their own pope, of course there is very little common ground with which to make any general statements.

Do Catholics make a habit of asking people "are you saved"? No. The question is incomprehensible. The question implies that salvation happened in the past, and is a single event. But this question is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of sola fide.

Now, the response here has been that sola fide was somehow only an idea in the past and that various Protestant sects have moved past this. I haven't seen this anywhere. I'd like to see public documents repudiating or amending sola fide.

If people would like this thread to be the exclusive domain of those with theological degrees, fine, I'll butt out. People here seem to take great umbrage at having to answer questions.

@Putin - no, you don't have to be Lutheran to comment on the obvious surface issues with Lutheranism. The official Presbyterian website speaks to their Calvinistic heritage. Assembly of God's official website speaks of their Pentecostal basis. And the JWs... I've known a few of them personally...

From Wikipedia:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian[1] restorationist[2] Christian[3] denomination[4] with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

Pretty well sums up JWs.

And I wouldn't dream of telling a JW what their church believes in detail because I don't knwo those details. There is a difference between a surface anaylsis and a deep dive study into a religion.

One note on "being saved". It may sound past tense with the "ed" but it is no different from being driven around. It can be an active process, ongoing, and continual. IT is an event in that you find your slavation, but is an active process in that every moment of every day you reaffirm that salvation through your faith and belief in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for you. Saying "I am saved" is like saying :I am alive". If it was an event and an event only, then you would say "I was saved." But the fact that we use the word "am" clarifies it as a continual process that started with an event, just like saying being alive started with birth.

@ Putin

"Yes, Anglicans may claim that. But I don't think many take their claim to be continuous with the pre-Reform Church in England very seriously - considering the adoption of various Protestant positions on everything from the sacraments to the abolition of Mass and penance."

Well I can point to about 70 million folks that disagree with you on that. That seems to me to qualify as a little more than "very many". Add to that the Lutherans who have become our buddies over the years who probably take it seriously enough.

The funny part is that you haven't craked a Book of Common Prayer or you'd have seen how ludicrous the idea that the Anglican abolished Mass or pennance is. Certainly we went to a general confession and confessional is a choice, but that's about it. There's a reason behind the old joke about Anglicans that we're "Catholic Light: All the salvation half the guilt"

@pastoralan

You didn't offend me no worries, and pardon my ignorance, but:

How is it that there being persistent stories of Jesus and others doing miracles means they did miracles? When did we cast veracity to the wind to hearsay?

Or did I misinterpret you?

All I am really doing is using my head here. I know that it is possible that the Bible was not written by who they say wrote it, or, if it was, that we don't know if it was altered.

So I take with a grain of salt. And since some of the more, shall we say, hard to believe, elements involve Jesus claiming to be the son of God and Paul saying he saw a vision and was struck blind etc I could go on.... I choose instead to listen to the admonitions of Jesus.

And the others of course, but mostly Jesus, because if I am to be a Christian I am to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus right? I didn't sign up to the teachings of James or Paul, interesting or enlightening though they may be (just as Confucius or Socrates can be).

That's assuming James and Paul actually wrote what we think they wrote.

So yeah.

At the risk of sounding mean, I just sort of looked at these things and figured them out for myself, because I consider most of the "academic" work on biblical interpretation to be a buildup of tradition with questionable foundations.

Of course this does not apply to Biblical archaeology or whatever.

But things like the Trinity? If it doesn't jump out at me from reading the Bible, sorry, I don't believe in it. I don't think God would have made it something only those trained in exegesis could spot.

Anyway.

"But things like the Trinity? If it doesn't jump out at me from reading the Bible, sorry, I don't believe in it. I don't think God would have made it something only those trained in exegesis could spot."

Thucy +1. The 'mystery' of the trinity has always been my biggest problem with Christianity.

1+1+1!=1 !!!!!

Think of it like body, mind, and spirit (if you believe in such) all being part of the whole that is you. 1+1+1=1. The Father is the mind. His plan that we follow. The Son is the body. His was the sacrifice. The Holy Spirit is the spirit. He guides us as our conscience.

That's a good way of putting it Draugnar. God made us in His image and almost every culture has seen an individual human as three distinct parts. It isn't as if the Christians made that up to fit our doctrine. For instance the most common motto among Karateka is "Strong Mind, Strong Body, Strong Spirit" and that grew as far as I can tell completely independently of Christianity. Even Freud broke the human condition up into three parts:

Id = concerned with the body and immediate needs & gratification.
Superego = concerned with morality and rules of society.
Ego = concerned with everyday life, and keeping the balance with the other two.

Freud is in no way trying to further the ends of Christianity as he was no friend of the religion, but it goes to show that in general three is a pretty good number for dividing a human up into in cohesive parts that work together.

It isn't exactly that hard to see and it doesn't need any particular training to see.

As I mentioned before I am Catholic, but I have had experience in a mostly Protestant University Christian group. In that group there were several who believed in the permanency of salvation. (Once saved always saved). This seams to contradict the Gospels (did not Judas betray Jesus) and Paul (I work out my salvation with fear and trembling or I run the race as to win the crown).

I like to look at it (and this is what is often mentioned in homilies in my Church) we were saved (Baptism/coming to accept Jesus), we are being saved (Continual effort to turn away from Sin and accept the Gospel), and we hope to be saved (At the personal judgement when we die).

The Anglican Church is similar in that regard. We have the general confession and absolution. Those would be superfluous if salvation was one event that permanently installed your name on the list of the elect.

"The funny part is that you haven't craked a Book of Common Prayer or you'd have seen how ludicrous the idea that the Anglican abolished Mass or pennance is."

The thirty-nine articles say as much.

ww.anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

what is the support for the trinity, biblically

@ Putin

"The thirty-nine articles say as much."

Again it would help if you'd actually read then. No they don't say that at all. If anything The Anglican Church is doing exactly what Thucy said with regard to placing emphasis on the two sacraments established by Christ, in the Gospels, and placing less emphasis on those that were established in Church tradition. Still though, the Anglicans do not reject penance and there is nothing in the 39 Articles that backs you up on that.

Here is the pertinent quote from the 39 Articles that says exactly the opposite of what you were trying to propose.
"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, ....The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them."

Both mass (Eucharist) and penance are integral parts of the Anglican Church.

Weird selective quoting, here's what that article says.

"Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

So as penance is not a 'state of life', not only do the Articles eliminate penance from the sacraments but they claim they have 'grown party from the corrupt following of the Apostles'. How is that contrary to what I claimed?

As for Mass - it's not called Mass in the articles for a reason, I would think (as far as I can tell, only the most conservative Anglo-Catholics say 'Mass'). Articles 28 and 31 are spent attacking the Mass - including Real Sacrifice - for being 'superstitious' and 'blasphemous'. The Anglican idea of eucharist as a mere 'symbol' is identical to the all the other Protestant sects, like the Baptists, who do not call it Mass.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19

to name one- @Thucy

Here are some other Thucy
Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; also Luke 1:35; 3:21-22 par.; 4:1-12; John 4:10-25; 7:37-39; 14-16; 20:21-22; Acts 1:4-8; 2:33, 38-39; 5:3-4, 9, 30-32; 7:55-56; 10:36-38, 44-48; 11:15-18; 15:8-11; 28:25-31 (Isaiah 6:9,10); Rom. 1:1-4; 5:5-10; 8:2-4, 9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6, 11-12, 18; 2 Cor. 1:19-22; 3:6-8, 14-18; Gal. 3:8-14; 4:4-7; Eph. 1:3-17; 2:18, 21-22; 3:14-19; 4:4-6, 29-32; 5:18-20; Phil. 3:3; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:4-6; Heb. 2:3-4; 9:14; 10:28-31; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 3:21-24; 4:13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 2:18, 27-29.

ot trying to be obnoxious by placing this on every thread but i would really like some feedback as soon as possible because i already have one new player who is interested
threadID=684026#684026

It's absolutely contrary because you are doing what you accuse me of. I shortened the Article to keep from having a monster quote, but kept the meaning the same.

You on the other hand left out the most important part that we should "duly use them" which changes the meaning. The article states that it's of less importance, but is still to be duly used. I reaize that you'll read what you want into anything , but this is clear cut. That Anglican Church hasn't abandoned penance. It's to be duly used.

By Mass I assume that you mean the Holy Eucharist. If transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation is all you've got then it's not really even relevant. One believes that the host become the body physically and the other believes the host becomes the body spiritually. That's hardly grounds for the claim that Mass has been "abandoned". Both positions are Scripturally based.

Let's put it another way. Do you think that the Anglican church also abolished marriage? It's one of the other sacraments on that list.

Perhaps they don't have priests, monks, and nuns?

Not to forget that Mass is the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper, that we acknowledge as one of the two sacraments established by Christ Himself. So not even in the quote that you butchered is it challenged.

Sorry to give you a long list with no commentary Thucy.

Basically those (You can skip the many in the Epistles of Paul) quotes all show Christ, the Holy Spirit, and The Father as a triad that works together. The Holy Spirit is shown as His Spirit. For instance my spirit is part of me. Christ promises the gift of the Holy Spirit and gives authority to the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. So it has Scriptural basis that isn't in the Epistles.

@Crazy - Haven't you figured out that Putin twists everything and removes inconvenient text. He is becoming a troll. That's why I stopped responding to him.

@ Draugnaur

Oh I've figured it out. I'm just wondering to what depths he'll go to try to prop up an irrelevant point that's becoming increasingly lost in the minutia.

He said that all Protestants ignore James. That's false it's in the NT and is found in the odd occasional sermon homily. I don't skip it in my reading do you?

He backed up and said that Luther hated it. So What? I'm sure Luther hated lots of things.

He said that ignoring and dropping the Apocrypha were the only basis for "Sola Fide". Big deal, we both told him that sola fide doesn't mean what he's saying for all Protestants. The Lutherans and Anglicans both believe that faith without works is dead (by which we mean treating others well, not merely receiveing the sacraments).

Then he went so far as to try to misquote the 39 Articles to an Anglican.

Now he's left with "Oh yeah, well you guys believe in consubstantiation". Yeah, So? It's Scripturally based what of it, and no it's not merely a symbol. That's the big difference between Methodists and Anglicans. We believe that it becomes the Body in spirit and consume it by faith. There's nothing in the Articles that says the Eucharist is a symbol of Christ's body and blood.

I've served the cup myself and repeated "This is Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation". There is no mention of Symbol anywhere in the Rite I or Rite II services, or in the Articles. The guy just doesn't know what he's taking about.

Just did it tonight... "The Blood of Christ, shed for you." to about 30 members of our congregation (I was Reader, Sacristan, and Lay Assistant tonight).

And, seeing as I brought James to the table in this chat, yeah, I read James. I happen to think he is spot on with a number of things.

I haven't researched it much, but it sounds like Anglican and Lutheran have much in common.

Oh the Lutherans and Anglicans are big buddies around my neck of the woods.

Believe it or not, the Lutherans and the Catholics are around here. I don't know of any Anglican churches in Greater Cincinnati, although I'm sure there are some, but we will break bread with any fellow Christian, be they Protestant or Catholic, and even have Seder meals with some of the Jewish Synagogues too.

The Episcopalians are Anglican. Yeah, we like to hang out with the Roman Catholics too.