It began as a defense of the Lent and Ash Wednesday to a friend, but the Protestant in question then asserted that Lent was both man-made and un-biblical. I questioned his resistance to man-made things, particularly in light of the Bible itself not appearing ex nihilo, and then pointed out some of the biblical foundations for the season, in addition to linking to this tract:
He responded thusly (and I’ll spare the passages he quotes lest this get overlong)(and I should mention that I myself am confused as to whether his commentary is meant to follow or precede the supplied verses):
These are the two main points given in the article posted on the reason for lent… Both are anti-biblical as there is no need for any extra-biblical works for atonement other than the atoning work of Jesus on the cross.
“yet are we still sinners: and where there is sin, there must be expiation.”
“Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an expiation for sin”
// He goes on to provide definitions for penance and expiation, making the very wise decision to define terms before an argument
Expiation is not needed because any man who is truly born again is set free from sin!
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV)(Romans 6:1-2, 4-7, 11-15, 17-18, 22 KJV) (Romans 8:1-4 KJV)(1 John 1:6-7 KJV)(2 Corinthians 5:17-19 KJV)
I am no longer a sinner but a saint!
// Cue spit take
(1 Corinthians 1:2 KJV)(Romans 1:7 KJV)
No need for penance here!
(Hebrews 10:10-14, 16-20 KJV)
No need for priests to absolve my sin!
(1 Timothy 2:5-6 KJV)
Anything which adds to the finished work of the cross is another gospel!
(Galatians 1:9 KJV)
So I’m thinking of submitting Colossians 1:24, in regards to working alongside Christ’s sacrifice.
To be honest, I’ve never met a “once-saved, always saved” type. The idea is so alien, I’m not sure how to tackle it. :shrug: