How do Protestants reconcile their view on merit with the historic Christian view as found in early Churcher writers/documents like the Shepherd of He...

How do Protestants reconcile their view on merit with the historic Christian view as found in early Churcher writers/documents like the Shepherd of Hermas, Tertullian, and Cyrprian of Carthage which is more in line with the Catholic view?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Shepherd of Hermas
    Imagine citing a LITERAL false prophet to argue for Catholicism lmao

    Aside from quote mining none of them sound like Catholics. Not one for centuries invoking the Queen of Heaven goddess you idolators worship.

    >Tertullian, and Cyrprian of Carthage
    What SPECIFICALLY did they say that contradicts Protestantism?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is quite in accord with Tertullian's view of God as Law-giver and Judge that the favour of God should be the outcome of merit on the part of man. 'For a judge is a rewarder in every cause. Well, since God as Judge presides over the exacting and maintaining of justice, which to Him is most dear, and since it is with an eye to justice that He appoints all the sum of His discipline, is there room for doubting that, just as in all our acts universally, so also in the case of repentance, justice must be rendered to God?'21 Since God has given a law, man must obey it. If he fails he deserves punishment, which he will receive here or hereafter; if he succeeds in doing all that is commanded, and in abstaining from all that is forbidden, he satisfies God, and so obtains the reward |p226 of eternity. 'But as there are some things which He forbids, against which He denounces even eternal punishment—for of course things which He forbids (and) by which withal He is offended, He does not will—so, too, on the contrary, what He does will He enjoins and sets down as acceptable, and repays with the reward of eternity.'22

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is possible, however, for man to take upon himself voluntarily the punishment which his sins have deserved. This may be done by repentance and confession. 'Inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born, by repentance God is appeased.'23 It may also be done by castigation of one's self. 'What, therefore, is the business of patience in the body? In the first place, her business is the affliction of the flesh, a victim able to appease the Lord by means of the sacrifice of humiliation.'24 'Thus that Babylonish king, by the immolation of the patience of his body . . . made satisfaction to God.'25 Above all, it may be done by suffering the death of martyrdom. 'This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal.'26 'For who that contemplates it is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it all? who after inquiring does not embrace our doctrines? and when he has embraced them desires not to suffer, that he may become partaker of the fullness of God's grace, that he may obtain from God complete forgiveness, by giving in exchange his blood?'27

        Not that all these are exacted for every sin. The punishment is strictly proportioned to the wrong done. If more is rendered to God than is strictly due, it becomes a merit which deserves a reward. It actually puts God in a man's debt. 'A good deed has God as its debtor.'28

        This doctrine was further developed by Cyprian, and through him affected deeply the ethical teaching of the Church in the West in later times. We must be careful, however, not to attribute to Tertullian himself all the developments of the theory which found a place in the later theology of the Western Church. It is necessary to bear in mind that:

        (1) What Tertullian has to say on this matter applies only to professed Christians. He holds that in baptism all sins |p227 are washed away, and the baptized commences with a clean sheet. From that time onwards he must do what is commanded, and must abstain from what is prohibited, in order to satisfy God.

        (2) The law which must so be kept is not the absolute will of God, but the lower standard which is allowed by His indulgence.

        The means whereby man is able to keep the law is his free will. Tertullian was a firm believer in the freedom of the will. It may be that here again his legal training has influenced his thought. The theory of Roman law is a simple one. Men are expected to obey the laws. If they do not obey them they deserve punishment. Subject to that condition, they are free to choose whether they will obey or not. This is precisely the view of Tertullian. 'And so, when we have learnt from his precepts each class of actions, what He does not will and what He does, we still have a volition, and an arbitrating power, of electing the one; just as it is written, "Behold, I have set |p228 before thee good and evil; for thou hast tasted of the tree of knowledge." '31 'Thus it is a volition of our own when we will what is evil, in antagonism to God's will, who wills what is good. Further, if you ask, Whence comes that volition whereby we will anything in antagonism to the will of God? I shall say, It has its source in ourselves.'32

        Wow all these posts and not a SINGLE quote of something he said that contradicts Protestantism

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is all in direct contradiction to the Protestant view about salvation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How? Specifically

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is possible, however, for man to take upon himself voluntarily the punishment which his sins have deserved. This may be done by repentance and confession. 'Inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born, by repentance God is appeased.'23 It may also be done by castigation of one's self. 'What, therefore, is the business of patience in the body? In the first place, her business is the affliction of the flesh, a victim able to appease the Lord by means of the sacrifice of humiliation.'24 'Thus that Babylonish king, by the immolation of the patience of his body . . . made satisfaction to God.'25 Above all, it may be done by suffering the death of martyrdom. 'This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal.'26 'For who that contemplates it is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it all? who after inquiring does not embrace our doctrines? and when he has embraced them desires not to suffer, that he may become partaker of the fullness of God's grace, that he may obtain from God complete forgiveness, by giving in exchange his blood?'27

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not that all these are exacted for every sin. The punishment is strictly proportioned to the wrong done. If more is rendered to God than is strictly due, it becomes a merit which deserves a reward. It actually puts God in a man's debt. 'A good deed has God as its debtor.'28

      This doctrine was further developed by Cyprian, and through him affected deeply the ethical teaching of the Church in the West in later times. We must be careful, however, not to attribute to Tertullian himself all the developments of the theory which found a place in the later theology of the Western Church. It is necessary to bear in mind that:

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      (1) What Tertullian has to say on this matter applies only to professed Christians. He holds that in baptism all sins |p227 are washed away, and the baptized commences with a clean sheet. From that time onwards he must do what is commanded, and must abstain from what is prohibited, in order to satisfy God.

      (2) The law which must so be kept is not the absolute will of God, but the lower standard which is allowed by His indulgence.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      (3) After he became a Montanist, Tertullian took a stricter view of the requirements of Christian discipline. The position that he took up was that the absolute will of God should be the standard at which Christians should aim, and that the 'better' should be chosen rather than the 'good.' 'If, however, He has given a preference over these to some other acts— (acts), of course, which He more wills—is there a doubt that the acts which we are to pursue are those which He more wills; since those which He less wills, (because He wills others more,) are to be similarly regarded as if He did not will them.'29 Indeed, a 'good' which can only be described as good when compared with evil is no real 'good.' 'Good is worthy of the name, if it continue to keep that name without comparison, I say, not with evil, but even with some second good, so that, even if it is compared to some other good, and is by some other cast into the shade, it do nevertheless remain in possession of the name good. If, however, it is the nature of an evil, which is the means which compels the predicating good, it is not so much good as a species of inferior evil, which, by being obscured by a superior evil, is driven to the name of good.'30 It is from this standpoint that Tertullian opposes the psychics or carnal Christians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The means whereby man is able to keep the law is his free will. Tertullian was a firm believer in the freedom of the will. It may be that here again his legal training has influenced his thought. The theory of Roman law is a simple one. Men are expected to obey the laws. If they do not obey them they deserve punishment. Subject to that condition, they are free to choose whether they will obey or not. This is precisely the view of Tertullian. 'And so, when we have learnt from his precepts each class of actions, what He does not will and what He does, we still have a volition, and an arbitrating power, of electing the one; just as it is written, "Behold, I have set |p228 before thee good and evil; for thou hast tasted of the tree of knowledge." '31 'Thus it is a volition of our own when we will what is evil, in antagonism to God's will, who wills what is good. Further, if you ask, Whence comes that volition whereby we will anything in antagonism to the will of God? I shall say, It has its source in ourselves.'32

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sola scriptura

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But scripture is very clear that there is merit

      Matthew 5:11-12, Matthew 6:1-4, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 16:27, Luke 6:35, John 14:2, Romans 2:6-11, 1 Corinthians 3:8, 1 Corinthians 9:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Colossians 3:23-24, 1 Peter 4:8

      The list goes on and on. Scripture speaks about the prize of salvation, of running the race, of storing up treasure in heaven. Protestant soteriology still cannot fully account for this.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Idk OP. How do Christians reconcile that their religion is based on a israeli heresy and that, if Judaism is wrong in some of its core assumptions (and it is), then Christianity is also wrong as its basis is flawed? They just do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Protestants aren't Christians.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They just ignore those facts and invent their own head canon by twisting Scripture to say what they want it to say (cherry-picking).

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think about it at all tbh.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because you don't care about the truth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and the truth of course is Mary

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *