Baptism and Sola Fide

Posted by on January 12, 2014 in Baptism, Catholicism, Early Church Fathers, Ecclesiology, Featured, Federal Vision, Gospel, Justification, Means of Grace, Ordo Salutis, Paradigms, Protestantism, Reformed Theology, Sacraments, Sola Fide | 1,158 comments

Today Catholics celebrated the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord, and most likely heard a homily on the topic of baptism accompanying the prayers, hymns, and readings that focused on this topic. As I sat in Mass this morning I was thinking about baptism and what a messy topic it was for me as a Reformed Protestant minister. On the one hand we have the teachings of the New Testament — teachings which are quite clear — about how “Baptism now saves you,” “Be baptized and wash away your sins,” “Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins,” and “All of us who have been baptized … have been united with [Christ].” An even cursory reading of the New Testament would give no other impression than that baptism actually imparts divine life to all who receive it.

On the other hand, however, Calvinists insist that the sole instrument by which justification occurs is faith, and that baptism per se  accomplishes nothing. While it is a sign and seal of the righteousness we receive through faith alone, without faith baptism is ineffective.

As anyone familiar with the Federal Vision controversy surely knows, navigating between the seemingly obvious teachings of the New Testament and the doctrine of Sola Fide  is anything but easy. In order to stay faithful to the Reformed confessions and catechisms, one’s affirmation of the biblical texts must come with severe qualifications: “Yes, I believe that all who are baptized are united with Christ, but in that statement ‘all’ doesn’t really mean ‘all.’ What Paul means there is that all the elect who have exercised faith in Christ for justification can be said to be united to Christ by their infant baptisms, even though that union did not really occur until much later. And likewise, all the reprobate who were baptized as infants received no saving blessings from their baptisms whatsoever, even though there were surely reprobates among the Romans to whom Paul’s epistle was addressed, to whom his statements did not apply.”

I hate to have to play the Paradigm Card™ again (just kidding, I love it), but I have a hard time understanding how the apostles, if they held that the sole instrument through which saving blessings are received is faith (with baptism itself being a powerless and empty ritual), could have written the things they indeed wrote in the New Testament.

But on the other hand, if the early church understood baptism, as such, to confer divine life, well, they pretty much would have said things exactly the way they in fact did say them.

And while I’m at it, I have a hard time understanding how to defend the idea that the early church fathers wrongly  taught baptismal regeneration using the exact same language with which their predecessors the apostles rightly  denied it.

1,158 Comments

  1. Kevin,

    1) You have not shown that the Catholic gospel is a false gospel. Have you even taken the time to go through Jason’s lecture? I see comments being made by you throughout the day on my email. Surely you have the time to listen to these lectures. Your interpretation of Romans/Galatians is highly at fault. You then misconstrue the Catholic position by thinking that we “get into the grace of God” by our love. This is heresy! The Catholic Church believes that when a sinner is baptized, the offer nothing in themselves to merit the graces of baptism. They come as a dirty pig filled with all the mud of his play. Through the act of baptism, when together with repentance & faith, infuses into the soul the divine agape which faith is formed by. You cannot have faith in God to be justified and at the same time have an evil hatred of him. Therefore, one must have faith with love to the Father almighty and His son Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Faith cannot just be co-existing with love, whereas it is faith out of the 2 that saves, whereas love is just a necessary counterpart that is just THERE. This is false. And this is heresy.

    You need to allow Paul’s overall context “guide” your interpretation of his specific arguments. In Romans 4, it is clear that he is speaking to an extremely Jewish context where it was required for gentiles to get to the status of “sons of Abraham” through entering into the Mosaic Law. The fact that you cannot sense this overall context disables you from actually interpreting Paul in his specific verses. You like to stress that Paul is repudiating “all works” in our justification, and therefore from this universal repudiation, he in effect speaks against the necessity of the Jewish Law. This is also false.

    I’ve provided hard line evidence to you that Paul knew Abraham was justified and saved right in Genesis 12, way before his faith is reckoned for righteousness in Genesis 15 (Heb 11-12). I’ve also provided evidence to you that it is Abraham’s faith which is reckoned for righteousness. It is the “righteousness of faith”, the “righteousness” that God imputes to those who have “faith in Jesus” (Rom 4:25), because his cross and resurrection destroy old humanity and makes reborn a new humanity. Through this passage from old to new life, Christ founded our justification, the forgiveness of sin and the reception of baptismal regeneration. Our birth “into Christ” is through the cross and resurrection, and therefore it is his cross and resurrection that justify us.

    We do not come to the Lord form the state of mortal sin with a certain amount of our love to be justified. No! That is heresy! It is, by the power of the Holy Spirit, a participation in the passage of Jesus Christ from old to new life. This is not a work of man, although it infuses within him a new mind, one that knows God.

    2) I gave Eric the lecture about all the Christians in the world who are “spirit-filled” who would excommunicate him for the simple reason that just by claiming that the “Spirit” is the only divine interpreter does not provide for yourself a sure way to know you are in the truth. You can claim this, but then you would be excluding all of Christianity prior to the reformation, excluding major portions of the reformation churches, excluding the old to modern Lutheran churches (ECLA/Missouri Synod), excluding the anabaptists, etc,etc. Who is to say that you have a special “tap into” the Spirit when these groups, claiming the same thing, wish to excommunicate you?

  2. Erick, you exist in a nominal church whose history has been keeping the word from the Laity or preaching it in a language foreign to them. Your churn killed William Tyndale for the crime of translating the bible into English. When Bloody Mary ascended to the throne in 1550, all bibles were removed from the church. 800 Protestant ministers fled to Geneva. 300 ministers were martyred. All for sake of the Pope and the Roman Church Religion. Almost every impoverished nation in the world is Catholic. They have robbed the people through selling forgiveness, masses, penance.And almost every flourishing nation is Protestant.The Reformers were responsible for bringing the Bible to the people. and you kept it from them. So we certainly haven’t been able to count on you to catechize anyone. All of you are unwilling to look at your History. It would make a bad movie.

  3. Kevin,

    1) And the Church of the apostles had a vacant office in the apostolic college with a history of deceit, betrayal, theft, hatred, and greed (Judas). Yet this did not make anyone doubt the office of Judas, nor any of the baptisms he conducted, demons he cast out, or sick that he healed. His office was still valid and continuing after his demise. Do you wish to run your test on the apostolic college before coming on-board with them?

    2) The Catholic Church has repented of the past. That means, in the modern day world, such evil that took place in the past would be dealt with by excommunicating authority, as well as local government authority (in the case of scandal that breaks the state’s laws).

    3) Where does the history of your church begin? And can you explain to me how you know this?

    4) How do you know your hidden church remained pure from all evil at all times?

    5) It is easy to purify “your” Church by pointing to some invisible spot in history, because it doesn’t have the embarrassment of actually existing. It is also easy because you get to choose the birth date of your own church, and separate it from the history of sinners. Someone doesn’t like the way things are going at first baptist of Atlanta because of the sinfulness of the members, and a member leaves and starts another church and starts a new history, completely separated from the baggage of the “old Church”. So, please explain to us where and how your church began, and when, and how it is immaculate.

    6) Again, you are not addressing my arguments.

  4. Erick, I read through your post twice, and this is the dilemma argued by men much greater and smarter than you or I or Jason, right. For centuries. You want to connect Faith and love in a final justification. And we make a distinction. Your point out about me not seeing the greater Jewish context, false. But you make foregrounds backgrounds and backgrounds foregrounds. Romans 4 isn’t about gentiles getting their covenantal badge. Its about individual justification. I reject your view of Romans 4. You miss the point that when a man is righteous in the OT, it isn’t because of a moral act or a work yet to be done. It is because he is declared righteous solely based on God’s grace before his bar. Galatians 3 is clear that the Spiri tand the entire salvation comes thru hearing by Faith. Not faith formed in love. Faith receives first and is first. It is the only thing that can embrace Christ and bring him to the soul, and it justifies. Love gives first and therefore we cannot ascribe to love what God intended for Faith. We can dismiss infused medicine because grace is not a substance that elevates nature outside of itself into divinity. Grace is unmerited favor toward a sinner. So we can say Eric that grace isn’t opposed to nature but sin. Grace doesn’t heal nature, it redeems and renews it. Grace doesn’t become nature and nature doesn’t become grace. I have more than shown that God does everything thru his word ex nihilo. He created the world. Let there be light( justification) Let the earth bring forth ( sanctification). He called Abraham out from a moon worshiping family by his word. He called Lazarus back from the dead. And He brings us to Salvation thru his Spiirit working his word. Romans 5:17,1Peter 1:23. james 1:18. We can dismiss the medieval ficticious system of infused habits. Again you have a faulty Law/New Law instead of Law/Gospel. We are no longer under the law but grace. Paul says “if it is by grace it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace. You fail to see the antithesis for Paul between Law and Gospel. Paul said if you take circumcision you are obligated to the whole Law. Its a unit. Paul eliminates all human effort from justification. Sometimes he says works, sometimes Law, sometimes works of Law. “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe. Erick, Paul’s language in Romans is forensically charged,same in 2 Corinthians 5, but you are stubborn and won’t look. Your Catholic mind is veiled and can only see justification on the installment plan by the transformative ( sanctification). The hard cold fact Eric is Luther because of his command of Hebrew and Greek exegeted forensic justification for the first time in the church and it dealt a fatal blow to Rome. Erasmus admitted to Luther Jerome had translated to declare righteous wrongly by using the Latin to make righteous and thats your model, Jerome’s. Its wrong and your young theologians admit it.. And Erick the scripture says the spire blows where and how he wants. You will not pin Him down to secondary human causes ( church, priest, sacrament as his regent in the church. God works directly on the conscience and heart of man, not he church. The church is the recipient of God’s grace not the provider. The spirit dispenses all the victory spoils of Christ, not the church. Thank God that the Reformers dispensed finally of the ecclesiastical machinery that was largely human is origin and content.

  5. Erick, the Catholic church just swept under the rug the whole priest homosexuality problem. Ratzinger resigned because the problem is rampant in the church. Thessalonians. In the end there will be those who prohibit marriage. Can the son of perdition in Thessalonians be anyone else but the pope, who has put himself up in the church as God. And for those who do not see this there is a delusion over them. It is bewitched the gullible world. Its like the emperor with his new clothes.

  6. 1) Baptism, Chrism, & The Lord’s Supper are the WILL of Jesus Christ, and are not human in origin. If you wish to do some study on the early Church and the sacraments, please see JND Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines”, and it is written by a non-Catholic Christian.

    2) I never said Romans 4 was not about individual justification. Where did you get that from? Let’s get this straight here, the blood of Christ justifies us (Romans 5:9). This is what Paul said. However, we know that the moment Christ died, everyone in the world at that moment was justified. Therefore, when Paul says “..having been justified by His blood” (Rom 5:9), he does not mean some automatic universalism outside the consciousness of the justified human being. So there is a subjective cause for one to be justified. Paul tells us that the word of the gospel, when believed, brings forth the righteousness of God. Faith in the gospel unites someone to the crucified and risen Jesus, and one therefore is joined, through faith, into the Holy Spirit. The delivers us from the life context of Romans 7 where we are left to our fallen flesh to try and keep the Law. The Spirit of life gives us the power to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law (Rom 8:3). This is not merely forensic, and yet this is what removes condemnation from us. The blood of Christ purchases us for union with the Holy Spirit, indeed, to become a temple of the Holy Spirit.

    3) Galatians 3 offers no proof to your view, especially because Paul’s use of Abraham being given the promise of life and justification 430 years before the Law shows that what he has in mind a justification, not necessarily apart from all moral works in conscience or in natural human understanding, but specifically the Torah of Moses. Faith connects us with the Holy Spirit, and yet if we do not “walk in the Spirit”, we will reap everlasting destruction. Galatians 5 still remains unanswered by you.

    4) Your whole argument of a human machinery was the mistake Paul made in Acts 19. I’ve already showed you that Paul baptized in water and laid hands on these men “in order” for them to receive the Holy Spirit.

    5) It is quite compatible with Paul’s theology to see the “righteousness of God” in 2 Cor 5:21 is God’s overall justifying activity which is accomplished through baptismal regeneration, which is a son of Adam’s participation in the passage from old to new life in the crucified and risen Christ. Nothing incompatible here.

  7. Kevin,

    1) You say that the Catholic Church didn’t even care about the sexual abuse scandals? What source are you getting this from? What proof do you have that the Magesterium allowed such sin to continue?

    2) If you see the Pope as the man of sin in Thessalonians, then we’ve had him since the 1st century beginning with Peter and the rest of his successors from that point forward who claimed, received, and exercised primacy of jurisdiction over the universal church.

  8. Eric,

    In regards to my conversion story, I’m a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school but haven’t always understood what it is we are supposed to do. My faith has grown constantly over the years but the key point in time ironically was one night about fifteen years ago when I was praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament…at 3 in the morning and I asked, “Why am I doing this? Is that really You?…if it is…I want to know.” That following night, Jesus struck a fear in me that I can’t describe. It changed my life around. I realized two things that night: A. God exists and B. He was not happy with me.

    As far as people who have really influenced me, I guess the key person would be the priest who encouraged me to pray that night in front of the Eucharist. He’s a local priest who has a national radio show now that’s on daily at 11:00 am on Catholic Radio. He was young at the time but full of fire and brimstone and really preached the Gospel. If you or anyone else are interested in listening to some of his podcasts they are well worth the listen:

    http://www.avemariaradio.net/archive-categories/christ-is-the-answer/

    The fact of the matter is that I would expect an experience with idolatry to be extraordinarily “beautiful.” Satan can disguise himself as an exquisite “angel of light.”

    Maybe, but I don’t think so. When Satan disguises himself, he encourages man to focus on himself. He wants man to be self serving. He wants man to place himself over God. Place himself over others. He wants man to love himself above all things. He wants man to ignore God, look at the fruit and eat it because it’s pleasing to the eye and useful or gaining knowledge of what is good and evil.

    The Catholic Church doesn’t do that. It encourages humility. It encourages service. It asks man to focus on God. It encourages loving your neighbor over yourself.

    The Catholic Church isn’t Satan in disguise and I know this because it hasn’t changed it’s message over the last 2000 years.

  9. Erick–

    Did you ever play the old game, I believe it was called “telephone”?

    The first person is given a message, and he passes it on to the person on his right by whispering in his ear, who in turn passes it on to the person on his right, until it comes full circle, back to the person who originated the message.

    What percentage of the time was the message unchanged by the time it had gone full circle? Zero, right? The message was, in fact, seldom recognizable when lined up with the original. It didn’t matter how “reliable” the succession of listeners was. You had to compare the end product to the original product. In other words, apostolic succession simply does not, indeed cannot work. If you want a reliable transmission of content, sola scriptura is the far more effective method.

    We know that modern Catholic doctrine doesn’t look a lick like the original message. So we don’t need to research the validity of your supposed “succession.” It is clearly bogus.

    We’re not the ones who just “look up in the sky” to see what the Magisterium has written. We read our Bibles…and do the hard, hard work of faithful interpretation!

  10. Kevin,
    You say you want my opinion? From a devoted Catholic?
    I highly doubt that, you’ve not given me any reason to believe that ….

    So it brought up a little exercise in my mind:

    What does it mean to be anti-Christ? How would one go about being anti-Christ?
    Now I’m not talking anti-God, just being anti-Christ, or rather, against the way God chose to save us. In other words, not completely buying into how God designed from the foundation of the world to redeem us.

    Got your attention?

    Such a slippery slope. The gospel should make everyone uncomfortable. Jesus always made everyone a little uncomfortable. Many were drawn to Him, the idea of Him, but were startled when they really looked at Him face to face. Very few could really follow Him, give up everything they perceived in their minds about the Savior they wanted and humbly obey what He asked of them.

    So if I wanted to confuse people, lead them a little astray so as to not really get it, I would begin by attacking the idea that the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God would become incarnate. Then I would lay the foundation of doubts about how this could be done. God couldn’t really be God and man at the same time. When he was really being God, His humanity would shrink. And when he was really being human, His divinity would shrink. Divide the humanity and divinity and attack from the weakest point of faith. If someone identifies with the power and majesty, whack at the knees and say no way, too much hocus pocus. If someone identifies with the humanity, give another kick and say no way, life on this earth doesn’t really count.

    A very clear way to begin to talk about this is using the terminology of body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. For in truth, this is what the Word Incarnate is –

    Where most Protestants begin to get testy is the night of the last supper. At least on this night, we all can agree what happened – Jesus began His passion by giving his disciples His body and blood to drink and eat.

    I really think that this is where all the problems and divisions can be traced back to with Christians. The work of the cross began with the humanity and divinity of Jesus being poured out to His disciples (literally, they ate His flesh and drank His blood) BEFORE he was arrested and crucified. This event is so unbelievable, so out of time and space, so hard to get our human brains around – how did He accomplish this and why? What was so important about the disciples eating Him and drinking Him in His fullness? And to repeat this event throughout time?

    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities of authorities – all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the first born from the dead, that in everything he might have the supremacy. God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Col 1:15-20

    Ummmm, I guess it was about making peace. God actually makes peace through the blood Jesus Christ shed. Through the blood, not only because of the blood – through the blood.

    Kevin, our Salvation is not just about you or me or even all of mankind. The scope of our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection is for all things for all time (seen, unseen, spiritual, physical, metaphysical etc)………… to only apply it in a small way is anti-Christ, to whittle out of this great mystery only what makes us feel good or what we can grasp with our minds is anti-Christ, to not adhere to the whole Gospel is anti-Christ – there is no division in the Body of Christ. His humanity and divinity are NOT to be used as only metaphors or a smokescreen when we don’t get it.

    Last point, you mention John MacArthur a lot. So I’ve been studying a little about what he preaches about the Blood of Jesus Christ – chillingly uninspiring and hacks away at the fullness of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

    “When Jesus paid the price for sin by shedding His blood, that blood became like a cleansing agent and washed our sins away. It isn’t that the blood itself had some quality, it is that the giving of His life paid the penalty for sin. And the giving of His life was symbolized in the shedding of His blood.”

    “You say, “Well how can the blood of Christ who died nineteen hundred years ago have anything to do with me today?” I’ll be really honest with you, I don’t have the faintest idea, all I know is God says that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. And all I know is that when a man comes to Christ and says, “Christ, come into my life and take away my sin,” and when a man is willing to repent of his sin, by some divine miracle right out of heaven God sprinkled him with the blood of Jesus Christ and he is clean. It’s a divine miracle that takes place within the life of a man. Somehow the blood that was spilled on Calvary those many years ago atoned for sin that day and keeps on throughout history atoning for sin to every man who was willing to kneel at the foot of His cross…at the foot of Christ’s cross, admit his sin and allow the blood of Christ to cleanse him.”

    “His sacrifice for sin was one act that involved both His dying and His pouring out of His blood. Sacrificial death was the essential element and references to blood are symbolic references to the death He died.”

    Now let me say something that might shake some of you up, but I’ll try to qualify it. There is nothing in the actual blood that is efficacious for sin. Did you get that? The Bible does not teach that blood of Christ itself has any efficacy for taking away sin. Not at all. The actual blood of Christ isn’t the issue. The issue is that His poured out blood was symbolic of His violent death, the death was the thing that paid the price, right? The wages of sin is what? Death. He died for us. It is His death that is the issue. The Hebrews spoke of it as His outpoured blood because that was something that expressed violent death, and they believed, for example, in the Old Testament it said, “The life of the flesh is in the blood.” And so the pouring out of blood was the significance of death. And so when it says here we are communing with the blood of Christ, it does not mean the literal blood of Christ is efficacious, it does not mean the literal blood of Christ is involved, it means we enter into a genuine vital participation in His death. But it is not the blood, the blood is only the symbol of the poured-out life.”

    “And the blood of Christ, of course, is representative of His death. I discovered in the New Testament that references made to the blood of Christ nearly three times as often as references made to the cross of Christ, and five times more often than reference to the death of Christ. The term “blood” is the chief method of the Holy Spirit in the New
    Testament to refer to Christ’s death. And whenever the Scripture speaks about His blood, it is Scripture’s way of referring to His death.”

    “The blood of Christ, I believe, is used most commonly because it was a Jewish expression for violent death and because it is a much more vivid expression for death than just the word “death” because it speaks of violence. A person could die with bloodshed, but when blood is shed it speaks of violence. And more than that, it speaks of sacrifice. And so when the New Testament speaks of the death of Christ, or the cross of Christ, it most commonly wants to use the term “the blood of Christ” because that embodies not just a death but a violent death, not just a violent death but a sacrificial death. And if you examine the Old Testament, you find that the uses of blood as a symbol of death fill the literature of the Old Testament.”
    “Colossians 1:20 speaks of the blood of His cross. Revelation speaks of guilt for the blood of the martyrs and the blood of the prophets and the blood of the saints. And what it always means is their violent death. And so when the New Testament refers to the blood of Christ, it is referring to the fact that He died a violent death, He died a sacrificial death, and when Jesus said in John’s gospel, “You must drink My blood,” He meant you must take the benefit to be drawn from My death, which is an act of faith in which you believe in the sacrifice Christ has provided. Christ did not and does not do things which His blood after His death. There’s nothing in Scripture to say Christ entered into heaven with His blood. The Scripture says He entered into heaven through His blood. “
    “Now the sum of what I’ve said to you is to say this, that the blood of Christ is a symbolic way of referring to His violent sacrificial death. The benefits of that death are conveyed in the Scripture in the words of drinking His blood, or having His blood sprinkled on you. And both of those are metaphors to speak of appropriation. As you hold in your hand that cup, it is a symbol. It is the fruit of the vine, grape juice, it symbolizes blood. The blood that it symbolizes is also a symbol, it’s a symbol of violent sacrificial death in your behalf. It is not just blood that is symbolized, it is shed blood, it is the blood that poured out of Jesus Christ as He was being murdered without just cause.”

  11. I counted at least 8 times where MacArthur flips and flops between humanity vs. divinity. He can’t seem to decide so concludes that it only represents a violent death.

    Have fun guys.

  12. Eric,

    Are you serious? The telephone game?

    The problem anyhow with your assessment is that the apostles understood the transmission of the gospel and the ekklesia to be in the form of Scripture and Tradition. And Catholics do the hard work of interpretation. I’ve refuted every notion you’ve brought to the text, particularly James 2.

    I remember you asking me how works give life to faith. The problem with that question is that it assumes that faith does not contribute anything. But this is not true. As with a human body, the spirit works with the body to make a living being. Faith working together with works makes a fully living person. In the same way, faith and works together makes for a living faith that saves us.

    James 2 can be narrowed to a few points

    1) Whenever faith does not have works, it is dead and useless, and therefore does not save

    2) When faith has works, only then does faith lead to salvation, because of the works that existed with it

    3) Abraham is a pure example of this, for he was justified by works when he offered up Isaac on the altar.

    4) This fulfilled the scripture where God regarded Abraham’s faith as righteousness, for at the time there was no evident work, but only faith, and yet later there was works. God, in other words, foresaw the works of Abraham, which makes Genesis 15:6 a sort of prophecy/fulfillment

    5) This is the best way to take it since James tells us that “works brought faith to completion”. If “faith” was “incomplete” prior to Abraham’s works, then it makes necessary that there would be a need for something to bring it to completion, and that is works.

    6) Therefore, we are not justified by faith alone, but by faith working together with works.

    7) The protestant reformation seriously mishandled this chapter in holy scripture, after much time of denying James into the canon.

  13. Lynn, I still haven’t gotten an answer to my questions. I’ll take that as you agree that being infallible and selling forgiveness can’t be reconciled. Luther felt that too.

  14. Kevin,

    Not even a bite?

    Or when you replied to Erik’ excellent post, “Erick, I read through your post twice, and this is the dilemma argued by men much greater and smarter than you or I or Jason, right.”

    In other words, lets forget that.

    I would think these things would intrigue you.

  15. Dennis, You said “When Satan disguises himself, he encourages man to focus on himself.” Can there be a more self focused Religion than Medieval Roman Catholicism. You participate in your own justification and atonement usurping the sufficiency of the Lord’s one time perfect sacrifice. What were you saying about Satan and disguising himself?God Bless

  16. Wow, just did three in a row.

    You ignored Erik, Dennis and myself.

  17. Lynn, but “where would you go” to find salvation if you couldn’t find it in the infallible church that sells forgiveness, right. I would want to forget that too. God has command on the heart and soul of man, not the church.

  18. Lynn, While I was praying for you last night i thought of something I’d like to share by the great theologian B.B. Warfield “When faith is not thus the ground or condition, but the evidence of salvation, our external bliss is no longer suspended or ought that we are to do, but hangs solely on Christ, doing his Father’s will. Faith, even Faith, as the ground or condition of salvation,may be also the ground of despair: but Faith as the proof of Salvation is the charter of the assured.”through humble acceptance. Many men on this site want to change the meaning of faith, throw it to the curb, subjugate it to love, redefine it, minimize it, add to it. Infused medicine and merit is their savior.But Faith is mighty. “By it men gained approval.”Faith alone saves” Lynn, for the Catholic justification is the recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward. For our dear Paul, whose words we adopt, it was a declaration about someone intrinsically and completely unqualified. God Bless

  19. Kevin,
    “for the Catholic justification is the recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward. For our dear Paul, whose words we adopt, it was a declaration about someone intrinsically and completely unqualified.”

    With all due respect, you have no idea what anything means to a Catholic.

    By the way,yesterday the world over, all Catholics celebrated the conversion of our dear St. Paul. It was a feast day to sing praise to our Lord for St. Paul.

    This is how the gospel you listen to is preached by a man under no authority but his own:

    I’ll be really honest with you, I don’t have the faintest idea, all I know is

    And all I know is

    Now let me say something that might shake some of you up, but I’ll try to qualify it

    Now let me say something

    The blood of Christ, I believe

    I discovered in the New Testament

    He meant you must take the benefit to be drawn from My death

    And what it always means is

    Now the sum of what I’ve said to you is to say this

  20. Lynn, I’m not ignoring you, you wrote a book. And you were deceptive in misquoting me. You said that i said how can the blood from 1900 years ago have anything to do with me now. I didn’t say that. The blood that was shed 1900 years ago was sprinkled on my heart. It is a blanket that covers history Lynn. ‘ When he died 1900 years ago, his blood covered all my sins. Hebrews 10:14. Romans 5:1 ” Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God. You can quit going to mass Lynn, expecting to earn your salvation in some way, each time you go. His sacrifice, the scripture teaches, is perfect, and sufficient for all time. Romans 4:25 ” he was delivered up for our sins and raise for our justification. When he was justified, so were we. The scripture says he is the first fruits and we have his guarantee there the Spirit, we are to follow. Lynn, when a man was righteous in the OT, it wasn’t because of a moral act or work yet to be done. It was because God declared him righteous before his bar, solely based on his grace. Have been in Romans 5:1 is the aorist past tense. we look back on our justification and have peace!

  21. Kevin,
    All the quotes are directly from MacArthur. No of it is yours, unless you have used these words as your own. The last 7 paragraphs are direct quotes from MacArthur’s sermons on the the Blood of Christ. They go back as far as 1969.

  22. These are all quotes from MacArthur from the ones I gave you to emphasis who his authority came from – himself:

    I’ll be really honest with you, I don’t have the faintest idea, all I know is

    And all I know is

    Now let me say something that might shake some of you up, but I’ll try to qualify it

    Now let me say something

    The blood of Christ, I believe

    I discovered in the New Testament

    He meant you must take the benefit to be drawn from My death

    And what it always means is

    Now the sum of what I’ve said to you is to say this

  23. Erick–

    Actually, you never even touched my arguments on James. You just reiterated your own arguments.

  24. Lynn, Eric, I want you to notice what Lynn just said in her diatribe to me ” The gospel should make everyone uncomfortable.”And the is one thing that i agree with White on. Catholics don’t have the peace of Romans 5:1. The true shalom of knowing we are saved. Should something called the Good News make us uncomfortable or bring us peace? When Paul says Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice, does he mean the Gospel should make us uncomfortable. Eric , you asked me the bottom line for me the other night. And here it is. the true Gospel brings peace and they don’t have it.

  25. Lynn, Joy means the absence of Fear!

  26. Lynn, he was in the room with them. They dint physically eat him. He said the words I spoke to you are Spirit. The flesh profits nothing.

  27. Eric,

    I thoroughly explained your arguments. Let’s try again:

    You believe

    1) James distinguishes two different kinds of faith, a saving faith and mere mental assent.

    2) Saving faith already has within it’s character, without works, the instrument of receiving the whole totality of eternal salvation. In other words, saving faith alone, without any works contributing, already connects a human being to the irrevocable status of salvation that cannot never change, increase, decrease, or be forfeited.

    3) The works that James says give validation to faith in no way contribute to salvation, but are rather merely co-existing as “evidence” of faith, and does not add anything that is lacking to saving faith, since saving faith is itself the connection to the whole of salvation (see #2).

    4) Abraham’s justification by works when he offered up Isaac on the altar finds no place within soteriology. At least as a condition to being saved. Justification in this sense merely validates the existence of saving faith which has already bound up within and through it the totality of everlasting salvation.

    These are your points, correct?

  28. Erick–

    I’m gonna act like you for just a second.

    Here’s me (acting like you):

    “I destroyed your arguments on the justification of Abraham, Erick! I literally DESTROYED them!!!”

  29. Kevin,

    So when Jesus said “The flesh profits nothing” (John 6), was his referring to his own flesh? As if to say that what may have been understood from his discourse on his flesh being the bread of life and the offer to eat that flesh for eternal life being a LITERAL eating of his flesh, Jesus attempts to dispel by saying “the flesh profits nothing”?

    Much more likely, Jesus is saying the natural human mind does not profit anything, because it fails to understand the words of the Spirit. The Jews at that time couldn’t make sense of what Jesus was saying, thinking that he taught them to literally knock him down, tie him up, and begin taking spoonfuls of his flesh and blood into their mouths. Of course, Jesus did not mean this. What Jesus was teaching was an immensely spiritual teaching that follows the whole gospel of John, that the eternal Word became flesh, that his physical body is the rebuilt temple of Israel, that he is the vine and we are the branches, and that we are united in some real way to his physical person. What Jesus was teaching is something that only later revelation would yield understanding, namely, that Christ would give us his body and blood to eat “sacramentally” through the transformation of real bread and wine.

    Kevin, something tells me you’ve not looked into this much. I would recommend this book: A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist by Abbot Vonier, Peter Kreeft and Aidan Nichols

  30. Eric–

    No, these are not my points….

  31. Eric,

    I can’t sense the connection there. I simply go by the old fashion way of debate or dialogue. You say something that requires my response. I respond. If you agree of disagree you respond accordingly. And the process continues. Unlike our situation, however, this would yield much further results in understanding both of our perspectives.

    Respond to what I’ve said about James, now.

  32. Eric,

    So which point does not cohere with your theology?

  33. Lynn, thats your opinion about what salvation is about. Here is what Paul says,” It is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners.” You have been doing no study on MacArthur. You like my friend Catholic friend Debbie went to the internet and pulled up an article that said he minimizes the blood( which is bogus), and he has cleared up that misconception. If you want to study MacArthur, go listen to his series on the Catholic church. He is very thorough. In fact you speak just like my friend Debbie, are you sure you are Lynn. Her middle name is Lynn. That blood has been sprinkled on the heart of all believers. Lynn I agree, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins, Hebrews says. But thru that one sacrifice, and shedding of blood, he paid for all sins all time. And now he is in heaven interceding for us. Isaish 53 says thru that shedding “the many were accounted righteous.” And this is what the Roman church misunderstands. The incarnation is finished. He said it is finished. The atonement accomplishes what it was supposed to accomplish, redemption. But for you it isn’t finished and he helps you save yourself thru the acts of the church. His blood saved me, past tense. My obedience is a love offering for what he did for me. You have to wait till the end to see whats in the box. So if you do sacraments you in, and if you don’t your out. Your salvation depends on you, ours depends on him. John 5:24 is a death blow to your theology. Because Jesus tells the one who believes that we have passed out of judgment and out of death into life. Now Lynn, What does it mean to pass out of judgment, past tense?

  34. Kevin,

    John 5:24 is not a deathblow to catholic theology. Keep on reading, and you will see Jesus believes in the traditional Jewish understanding of a final judgement according to works. In other words, those who are righteous by doing the will of God will enter the kingdom of God, and those who are wicked through sin will enter into judgement.

    Rather, that is a deathblow to your theology.

  35. Eric, when Erick reads what you say he hears what he says. I figured it out. PTL.

  36. Erick, in light of your ongoing incarnation, I understand why you want to keep reading. I would want to run to the next verse too.

  37. Erick, so let me get this right, those who believe and have passed out of judgment past tense are really persons who have to live rightly and enter at at a later date. Great exegesis bro. Your playing the telephone game!

  38. Kevin,

    What Jesus is saying is that through believing in Jesus, or by “receiving him”, men and woman enter into everlasting life, in the here and now.Jesus was speaking about the “now” because of Jesus’ presence, but the real “life” that was offered from Christ would only be given by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which would come on the day of pentecost. See how the apostle John understands of Jesus’ teaching on eternal life in John 7:38

    If anyone is thirsty, [h]let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From [i]his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified

    Jesus also said that He was the vine and we are the branches. One can be a branch, but through wicked works is cut off and thrown into the fire. Jesus presumes that those branches who stay united to the vine are doing so by righteousness. Therefore, on the final day of judgement, the righteous will inherit eternal life, the eternal life they began to have, in the form of a down payment, when they first believed.

  39. Kevin,

    I really don’t know how to communicate with you. I’ve tried different ways, with different styles, honestly giving my personal witness, giving you clear ideas and then you always throw it off course with a big bomb of one thing or another that has nothing to do with anything???

    To see that you didn’t even realize the thrust of my post to you and then not even realizing that I picked John MacArthur (I could have picked anyone you have mentioned so far) to use as an example of why authority is needed and not a person’s opinion (by the way I regret saying studying, I should have said researching his comments – read carefully they are over a 30yr. span, not one sermon) ….. yikes, I give up.

    This is juvenile, sorry for taking up so much time. The others can most assuredly do a better job at this and you may feel better not giving into your Freudian slips.

    Prayers for you,
    Lynn

  40. Erick lynn, Even Augustine in his commentary on John is amazed at the fact that this is past tense. It has been secured by the sacrifice of Christ even before he goes to the cross. Its hard for Catholics to reconcile this in their minds the past tenseness of salvation. For instance the verse” We have ben transferred from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of light.” There is an already/ not yet as we straddle two ages. These passages, as well as those on justification are an already forgone conclusion for those in Christ trusting Christ alone. Here is the memo, the incarnation is not still going on and being played out in Rome as it substitutes itself for his natural body of Christ: and separates the soul from direct contact and immediate dependence on God and the Holy Spirit as the source of gracious activities. Romanism interposes between the soul and the source of all grace instrumentalities on which it tempts it to depend, and it thus betrays the soul into a mechanical conception of salvation. The church takes the place of the Holy Spirit in the thought of the Christian, and he thus loses all the joy and power that came from conscious direct communion with God. It makes every difference to religious life, and for comfort and assurance of religious hope, experiencing personally present to our souls, working in His loving grace.

  41. Erick, Lynn, It also neglects the Holy Spirit, the source of all graces, as if he were natural, not blowing where and how he pleases, but uniformally and regularly wherever His activities are released. It speaks of the church as the storehouse of salvation as if it can be stored and used as needed. Like electricity when its drawn. The Holy Spirit’s saving grace is kept on tap, and released at the churches will to do the work required of it. It is the subjection of the Holy Spirit in his gracious operation to the control of men. It is a truly human institution, becoming more human all the time.

  42. Kevin.

    Why I am not surprised that you did not deal with the arguments brought against your view? You have a bad habit of just going headlong into a rant on all the assumptions of standard Protestant theology, something that we are all too familiar with. You need to take Erics advice and slow down and break up your comments. We aren’t getting anywhere anyway else.

  43. +JMJ+

    Kevin wrote:

    The church takes the place of the Holy Spirit in the thought of the Christian, and he thus loses all the joy and power that came from conscious direct communion with God.

    This is telling language and a key to his assumptions. Those who still insist on engaging Kevin might want to explore this avenue.

    Me? I’m going for a smoke and some Super Mario.

  44. Erick, I guess the guy in 1 Corinthians 5 didn’t get the memo. He was caught up in mortal sin and was saved. Your view is also in direct contradiction to the Lord saying he loses none that the father gives him. Erick you can’t get past the fact in your mind that union with Christ came through faith Gal 3, and through regeneration we receive the Spirit and the imputed righteousness of Christ which justifies us. Isaiah 53 tells us through his suffering the many will be accounted righteous. Our justification is not based on our Spirit led works but on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith. Romans 5:17 calls it the “free gift of righteousness.” If it is a free gift, you cannot earn it with you grace enabled works. If i gave you a gift and you paid me for it, iy wouldn’t be a gift. The whole point of Romans 4, which you fail to realize.

  45. Erick–

    You keep ragging Kevin when he doesn’t answer every jot and tittle of your amazing thought. I gave you a post some time ago now where I enumerated a number of things of mine to which you still hadn’t replied. You totally ignored my post. You don’t get to come back now and say you refuted arguments which you never even addressed!

    1. I said quite strenuously that, no, there are not different kinds of faith: there is possession of genuine faith and there are mere claims to “faith” (and James calls this so-called “faith” useless, barren, and dead), in other words, no faith at all. Dead love is not inactive love: rather it is NOT love in any sense. (In fact, dead love sometimes goes beyond indifference into hatred.)

    As the Jesuit scholar, Thomas W. Leahy puts it: “James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but merely of the making of such a claim.”

    2. Essentially, neither faith nor works contribute anything. Faith is merely the gracious means whereby CHRIST saves us. Why would he need our works to save us? Why would he need any assistance whatsoever? The thought is ludicrous. Like pregnancy, salvation either is or it isn’t. One cannot be “a little bit” pregnant. That doesn’t mean, however, that one doesn’t grow in pregnancy…or that sleep and nutrition and exercise are unhelpful.

    3. Works are NOT mere evidence but add substantially to our sanctification.

    4. I haven’t addressed Abraham at all. Not even one time. I don’t believe his exact situation is normative (like you don’t believe that those who received the Holy Spirit before baptism are normative).

    Sometimes, I don’t know why we bother to discuss Scripture with you guys at all. I mean, what does the following verse mean to Catholics:

    1 Timothy 3:2-4

    “Now a bishop must give no grounds for accusation but must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, circumspect and temperate and self-controlled; sensible and well behaved and dignified and lead an orderly life; hospitable, a capable and qualified teacher, not given to wine, not combative but gentle and considerate, not quarrelsome but forbearing and peaceable, and not a lover of money. He must rule his own household well, keeping his children under control, with true dignity, commanding their respect in every way and keeping them respectful.”

    There is no clear evidence of clerical celibacy before the beginning of the fourth century….

    Since Catholic Tradition clearly trumps Scripture, why should we even discuss it? For you are inherently disingenuous when we do. Right? (What am I missing?)

    4) Abraham’s justification by works when he offered up Isaac on the altar finds no place within soteriology. At least as a condition to being saved. Justification in this sense merely validates the existence of saving faith which has already bound up within and through it the totality of everlasting salvation.

  46. Erick–

    I’m sorry for leaving your point #4 at the bottom of my last post. I had brought it down in order to address it, and then forgot to delete it. 🙁

  47. Erick, in your post to me you site Romans 8:3 and you say that “The Spirit of life give us the power to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law.” But thats not that verse says, it says he fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law in us. IOW God transferred the Law to christ and he fulfilled it. Thats why Romans 10;4 says Christ is the END of the Law for righteousness to those who believe. We are no longer under law but under grace. We are to obey the Law but are not under its penalty. Righteousness comes thru faith, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us that allows us to stand just before God. Otherwise he couldn’t declare an ungodly man righteous apart from works.

  48. Kevin,

    That’s a good verse to talk about. Romans 8 is strictly dealing with our “walk” , whether it be in the flesh or in the spirit. Those who are led by the spirit walk in the spirit and those who walk in the spirit bear the fruit of the spirit , which fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. Even Protestant scholars recognize that Romans 8:3 is speaking about our actually fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law

  49. Erick, If i can walk you thru this. I have been studying this for years. Couple things you need to notice. 1. The righteous state or result( fulfilled). 2. It wasn’t fulfilled by us ,but in us, passive role and passive voice. Its nothing we did. The word condemned in 8:3 recalls condemned in 8:1. This is the reality of justification. 8:33-34. Who can bring a charge against God’s elect?, its god who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Who will separate us from the love of Christ. For those who are in Christ the righteous requirements of the Law have been fulfilled and we stand not condemned or justified before God. Only to those who are in Christ who walk by the Spirit. Justification embraces sanctification.

  50. Wosbald, How was Super Mario bro? Nothin like a little Virginia Slim and a little Super Mario. You don’t have direct communion with God thru the Holy Spirit bro? The word tells me I posses the Spirit of Power and adoption. He tore the veil away and we go into the throne room, offering up prayer and thanksgiving. Do you have to check with the church before you pray, confess (oops yes to confess). God didn’t tear down all the barriers between himself and man, to put sacraments between them, right. The scripture does say the Spirit blows where and how he wills, you’ve read that verse haven’t you.

  51. +JMJ+

    Even the Pro Bowl is better than this.

  52. Mateo, Question, Faith formed in Love, How much obedience does it take to make faith true?

  53. Lynn, you write:

    What does it mean to be anti-Christ? How would one go about being anti-Christ?
    Now I’m not talking anti-God, just being anti-Christ, or rather, against the way God chose to save us. … if I wanted to confuse people, lead them a little astray so as to not really get it, I would begin by attacking the idea that the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God would become incarnate.

    Lynn, I want to affirm your thinking here, and also point out that the Apostle John applied the word “antichrist” to the Docetae , the heretics of the first century that denied that God the Son came in the flesh:

    For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
    2 John 1:7

    Lynn, if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that a big problem with Protestantism is that “Reformers” attacked the idea of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; the belief that Jesus is not just spiritually present when the Eucharist is confected, but the Son of God is present in body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. I never thought that the “Reformer’s” rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist came from the spirit of antichrist, but upon reflection, I would have to agree with that, since the denial of Jesus in the flesh is sign of the presence of the spirit of antichrist.

    Lynn, when I read your post, I thought of this comment from Peter Kreeft:

    What was the bitterest controversy of the Protestant Reformation, both between Protestants and Catholics and between the different Protestant denominations, the one that had both sides calling the other not just heretics but devils?
    .
    Answer: It was not Justification by Faith, the hallmark of the Reformation, even though that question is about nothing less momentous that how to be saved, how to get to Heaven. It was not the relationship between religion and politics, even thought that was a matter of life and death (literally, on battlefields and at hangings). It was not about the sufficiency of the Bible, or the corruption in the Church, or the relation between the Bible and the Church. It was not about the Pope and the governance of the Church. It was not about Mary or the saints or angels or Purgatory. It was not about the Incarnation or the Trinity or the Atonement.
    .
    It was about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
    .
    It’s not hard to understand why. Catholics accused Protestants of refusing Christ’s most intimate and total invitation to union with Him that is possible in this life; of locking the doors of their bodies and souls against the God-man who was knocking at those doors as truly, as really, as literally, and as completely, as when He roamed the streets of Israel in 30 A.D. and knocked at the door of a house. ….
    .
    Ref: book “Jesus Shock”, by Peter Kreeft

  54. Kevin, you ask:

    Mateo, Question, Faith formed in Love, How much obedience does it take to make faith true?

    Kevin, are you still missing the point that Catholics have been making here? One can have true faith without having salvation locked up tight. A Christian man that has destroyed his temple by having sex with whores can still have true faith, because his faith does not instantly disappear when he decides to commit the abomination of fornicating with whores. The Christian man with a destroyed temple can have true faith, but his faith has no power to save him unless he repents of his sin and asks God for forgiveness.

    If you are asking “How much obedience does it take to make faith saving?”, then that is a different question.

    Three times in the New Testament it is acknowledged that Abraham’s faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:22, Galatians 3:6, and James 2:23 – RSV translation). Was Abraham’s faith merely intellectual assent to theological propositions about God? No. When Abram was a pagan, and he acted on faith. He left his home in Haran when he was seventy-five yeas old. Abraham brought his beloved son to Mt. Moriah, etc. – he did these incredible things all because he acted on the faith he had in God. Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness because of his obedience of faith. Abraham was doer, and not a hearer only, and that is what it takes to be saved.

    For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
    Romans 2:13
    .
    But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
    James 1:22
    .
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
    James 2: 21-24

    Kevin, Christ gives us the criteria that he will use when he separates the sheep from the goats at the Final Judgment, and that criteria is not mere intellectual assent to theological propositions about Jesus. The criteria that separates the sheep from the goats is what we do with our faith. To be saved, we have to be like Abraham – a doer and not a hearer only. If you don’t believe that, you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against Jesus, and you will not win that argument.

  55. Mateo, The reformation was about the location of merit. Its amazing how you forget he went away and left us the Spirit, and he wouldn’t eat again with us until he came again. Augustine said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until he returns again. Augustine would have loved the Reformers. Well, unfortunately Kreeft forgot about the what the scripture said was the most intimate and total invitation to union with Him, Faith thru his Spirit and the word Galatians 3:1-6. Remember Mateo, Cosmic Jesus everywhere is Jesus of Nazareth nowhere.

  56. Mateo, the thing that makes faith true and justify is the person it receives Jesus, not any works or being formed in love. Faith is the empty hand that receives the Gift of eternal life and brings it to the soul. You can’t put repentance in that hand, or obedience in that hand, or formed in love in that hand. Lat me correct you on what you say we say is faith. You say intellectual assent, but you are wrong. But it is knowledge, assent, and trust, receiving and resting in Christ alone. Those are conditions you are adding. Thats like saying, Im on a sled on top of a slushy hill and you are pushing me down, and then half way down there is a dry patch and you quit pushing me and let me to myself. I can’t use my hands. You say that because you add to justification the life lived for a final justification. Listen to Paul”But God, being rich in his mercy, because of His great love for us with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ jesus. For by grace you have been saved thru faith; and that not of yourselves, it is gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Mateo, while we were dead in transgressions HE saved us and made us alive together with Jesus and raised us up and seated us in heaven with Him, not of ourselves, not of works, as a gift by faith. Hoe could you ever add condition to this such as attaching works or formed in love ( the live lived, sanctification)? This is all a work of God. Even the Faith that receives Christ is a gift of God.

  57. Like I said before, Kreeft is not much of a theologian…since the Reformers (even Zwingli to some extent) did indeed believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

  58. Kevin,

    1) The fact that the righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled “in us” only serves to prove the Catholic argument, for it is infused into our souls

    2) Why would Paul be supporting an alien righteousness if in the context the whole purpose is teaching that the Spirit has delivered us from sinful lives?

    3) Have you read Thomas Schreiner? You should read his commentary on Romans 8. How about Douglas moo? This verse is commonly interpreted by protestants as referring to a sanctifying deliverance from sin.

    Eric,

    I’m sorry, the Catholic Church is the only Church that believes in the real presence, body, soul, blood, and divinity, in the holy Eucharist. Should we give the Orthodox and Anglicans the right to call it the real presence? Perhaps. But it sprung from Christ through the Catholic apostles and to their successors.

  59. Erick–

    I did want to address your whimsical idea that I would be excommunicated by various and sundry groups, seeings I have been a member of various and sundry groups and have yet to be considered for excommunication. I was a Lutheran for a good 20 years and in the PCA for another 15 years or so (even coming “under care” at one point…i.e., kind of a pre-certification before pursuing seminary studies). I have been confirmed in the Anglican Communion and been a member of a Reformed Baptist church (without being rebaptized). Somehow, I think this excommunication business has been overblown!

    Besides, I’ve taken communion in just about every Protestant denomination known to man, including the LCMS and the Wisconsin Synod. And several Catholic churches, to boot. Evidently, nobody much takes this excommunication thing too seriously….

    Which is how it ought to be! Withholding the bread and the cup from a genuine Christian not mired in besetting sin IS AN ACT OF SCHISM as far as I am concerned! Christ is not amused!!

  60. Eric,

    You must not have read everything I wrote. I accounted for the modern day break from the old practice of separation. The ancients knew this well. Up until about 100 years ago, there was no overlapping in communions with various denominations. Such is a modern phenomena. My statements concerning excommunication come from the historical majority of Christian practice, one founded on Holy Scripture (Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5, 2 Thes 3, Rev 1-3).

  61. Erick–

    I’m sorry, sir, but you are the one who is wrong. By the way, Anglicans, who choose not to delineate the why’s and wherefore’s of the mystery of the Eucharist, are fairly equally split between Lutheran and Presbyterian understandings of the sacrament, with some Anglo-Catholics opting for a full-blown transubstantiation. The EO also do not try to pin it down. It’s only the Catholics who try to distill it down into a mathematical formula. They’re always trying to put God into a box….

  62. Erick–

    A hundred years ago, my butt! Study the history of a few Protestant denominations, rather than relying on Catholic propaganda, and you’ll find that most of them have had a fairly broad range of belief and believers.

  63. Eric,

    I’ve spent time studying Lutheranism (my son attended a Lutheran school for a time) as well as attending the Lutheran Church, I’ve also spent time in a high-church Anglican Province of America (APA); part of the worldwide traditional Anglican movement, and the emphasis on the “real presence” of Christ’s “flesh” and “blood” in the agency of sacrifice was extremely high. While there were Anglicans at the parish who were ex-PCA’s who didn’t want to go this far, there was an emphasis nonetheless.

    You find me a quote where a respectable Eastern Orthodox Bishop doubts that Christ’s literal flesh and blood are in the sacrament, and I will at least concede to your statement.

    But what is interesting in all of this is that you are hanging on such a thing rope here. The eastern orthodox do not believe that Anglicans can offer up the Eucharist because of a lack of proper orders. The Anglicans are the more liberal ones, yet their sacrament of ordination excluded the idea of propitiatory sacrifice for 100 years, which brings a huge question to the validity of ordination in the Anglican Communion(s!).

    So my statements regarding excommunication stand as a brick wall, for again, I am not speaking to today’s modern practice of allowing inter denominational overlapping, but of the ancient practice of proper separation. That being said, you’d have many papers in the mail declaring your excommunication….and yet the Truth is so easy, you just have to look up into the sky.

  64. You show me where before 1900 there is a inter-denominational overlapping in worship, doctrine, and practice, and I will give some credence to your seemingly uninformed opinion.

  65. But what is sad here is that it doesn’t matter to you whether the whole world would excommunicate you, for you have the Spirit which is the divine interpreter, and he tells you that your ok. Once you’ve deluded your thinking into such a realm, who can tell you anything??

  66. Wosbald, When an over realized eschatology is combined with the totus Christus emphasis, not only is Christ the subject of the church-of the universal church-but the church itself also becomes a subject, that is, the subjectivity of Christ is transferred to the church. In contrast one must insist that the church is not the acting subject of salvific activity. This is the soteriological reason why one must reject the notion of Christus totus is incompatible with souls Christus.The church can lead a person to faith, but fiducia is exclusively a gift of the Spirit of God.

  67. Kevin,

    You are missing the divine element and parameters of the mystical body of christ. It is a supernatural society wherein through the sacraments lie the hidden & invisible life of the risen jesus Christ. If Christ established one spiritual society wherein such apostolic authority, then you would have to be able to connect your ministers to this church. And as it implied, you cannot do.

  68. Erick, thats nonsense, no infused medicine. Galations 3:1-6 says explicitly that the Spirit is received by hearing of faith, and the working the Spirit in sanctification is by faith. It is all a result of the forensic justification in verse 1. I have explained this to you before. The righteousness that comes from outside us doesn’t stay outside us. The Spirit brings Christ (notice there he says spirit of Christ) and all the benefits to our heart , so that for those in Christ they are justified and are now being sanctified as they walk in the Spirit. Notice he doesn’t say we fulfill the Law, but christ fulfilled it past tense, and he did it in us, not by us , it is passive voice. Very important.

  69. Mateo,
    You wrote;
    “I never thought that the “Reformer’s” rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist came from the spirit of antichrist, but upon reflection, I would have to agree with that, since the denial of Jesus in the flesh is sign of the presence of the spirit of antichrist.”

    I’m going out on a limb here, but it didn’t really occur to me exactly this way either. When I was awoken at 4:00 in the morning I had a burning desire to get these thoughts down on paper, and didn’t realize exactly how it would come out. Like you, I didn’t equate consciously to this degree that disbelief in the Real Presence was a sure sign of the anti-christ, but as I kept typing it became so clear that even in the smallest ways of chiseling off the truly divine/truly human Savior, the anti-christ is present. What is sobering for All of us is that, we All must guard ourselves from the persistent spirit who goes against Christ. None of us is totally immune from the attacks – but praise be to God, He has overcome the world.”

    Thanks for edifying me, Lynn

  70. Erick, and you are missing that the Spirit mediates that life of Christ, not the church. The church can’t usurp the position of the Spirit. You get on Eric because he possess the Spirit of God and follows that personal relationship with his Lord. For you the church is the temple of the Spirit. Your one corporate Christ, the church, the Eucharist and the member. All collapsed into a corporate Community. For us the church is a collection of individuals simultaneously justify and sinner with different gifts in the body. You know the scripture says the spirit blows where and how he pleases. For instance Christ’s risen body, that is his ecclesial distinguished from his natural is not fleshly but spiritual. He did not come to incorporate us into His body according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Hence comes his promise that when he ascends, he will send the spirit. The importance of both the ascension of Christ in the flesh and the descent of the spirit. Our union with Christ does not occur at the level of fused natures, but as a common participation of different members in the same realities of the age to come by the same spirit.

  71. Erick–

    Here’s a quote from Perry Robinson, an EO adherent who posts here and on various Catholic and Reformed blogs:

    “The irony is that the East received the Eucharist standing up and maintain that the elements remain in their essences while maintaining the real presence of Christ’s humanity in the elements.”

  72. Erick–

    The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, agreed upon by the American House of Bishops in 1886 and endorsed at the third Lambeth Council in 1888, established the Anglican criteria for reunion with Rome and Constantinople, as well as for ecumenical discussions with other Protestant churches:

    1. The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation;
    2. The Creeds (specifically, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds), as the sufficient statement of Christian faith;
    3. The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion;
    4. The historic episcopate, locally adapted.

    And that is the whole of it. Pretty simple, allowing for a great deal of leeway.

  73. Erick–

    I would much rather look “up to the sky” and listen for the voice of the Holy Spirit (for that is where he appeared at Christ’s baptism) than to look to a bunch of fat, rich white men dressed in red–looking like they have swallowed the Holy Spirit “feathers and all”–pontificate on what they feel the Spirit is saying to the church.

  74. Eric,

    I wanted to apologize for my lighthearted nod earlier to you recognizing in me the “distant beating heart of Christian”. For in truth, if our souls don’t recognize that within our fellow Christian brethren, all hope may be lost. I too recognize that in you and wanted to pass along a Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus that you might enjoy. If nothing else, the beautiful poetic declarations of love and adoration that pour forth from these prayers can spark and fan our thankful praise and worship of our Lord.

    Peace,
    Lynn

    http://www.prayerbook.com/Devotions/Sacred%20Heart/sacredHe.htm

  75. Erick–

    By the by, Aquinas himself espouses something rather similar to Calvin’s notion of Christ being locally present ONLY in heaven, for he denies that Christ’s humanity is present after a natural mode of presence, that is, a local mode:

    “Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”” ST Tertia pars, 75, 1 ad 3.

    He also explicitly affirms that it is present locally in heaven only. (Sent. 4, dist. 10, ques. 1, art. 1, sol. ad 5) In fact, Aquinas argues that it is impossible for God to make it bi-local. (Quodlibet 3, 1.2, resp.) Much the same can be found across a good number of pre-Reformation scholastics. (Lombard, Scotus, etc.) There is no bi-location.”

  76. Lynn–

    I have had other Catholics steer me in that direction. In general, the whole “sacred heart” tradition sickens me, but NOT for what it truly represents–I have some profound respect for St. Faustina’s revelations and believe they have some actual connections to the thought of sola fide.

    What I object to are many of the depictions of it. I have seen far too many statues of Jesus and Mary side by side, with hearts sticking out of their chests, as if they were identical twins (aside from Jesus’ beard). Why is Jesus so effeminate…and why so Marian?

    To be honest though, you spook me some. (You and your Hindu buddy, Wosbald!) Look, I don’t care for any practice of the Eucharist which does not acknowledge the Real Presence of Christ. All the same, to characterize Memorialists as being in line with anti-Christ is uncommonly uncharitable.

  77. Eric,

    Well just wanted to pass it on, obviously you have evoked that reaction in other Catholics, but I completely understand.

    Also, you might have missed how I ended that post about the spirit of the anti-christ:
    What is sobering for All of us is that, we All must guard ourselves from the persistent spirit who goes against Christ. None of us is totally immune from the attacks – but praise be to God, He has overcome the world.”

    In my daily walk, temptations continually come up. The world wants our souls do disclaim Christ in every facet of our lives. Remember, Satan was in the garden, and I dare say everywhere else. It was a call for humility and prayer for all of us dear brother.

    Peace

  78. +JMJ+

    Eric wrote:

    Look, I don’t care for any practice of the Eucharist which does not acknowledge the Real Presence of Christ. All the same, to characterize Memorialists as being in line with anti-Christ is uncommonly uncharitable.

    I can’t speak for Kreeft, but considering that he seems to hitting the same point that I often hit, I suspect that he is also subsuming Reformism’s Eucharistic paradigm (the “It’s Jesus for me, not for you” paradigm) under the spirit of Antichrist. And rightly so, for that which is anti-Incarnational is anti-Christ.

  79. Eric, If you get a chance and your interested, its full on Romans 4 and justification on the other new thread with the focus on Nick Batzig’s book on Romans and his focus on timeframe of Abraham being justified before circumcision and not after, which puts a knife in sacramental efficacy to final justification.

  80. Eric, after your post to Erick about the fat white guys……..aint no way your swimming the river! PTL

  81. Wosbald–

    It’s not “Jesus for you” in any positive sense if you have no faith. The paradigms are not very far apart in terms of the “benefits” of the Eucharist to the non-believer.

  82. Kevin–

    A good many of those “fat, white guys” are Italian, so wipe that smile off your face!

  83. Lynn, is it hard for you to just say your wrong. You seem to always justify yourself ( no pun intended). You don’t have to be perfect ( again no pun intended). My friend, she always has to maintain this devout posture. Always telling me what time she gets up to pray and fast, and how long she prays. I tell her she doesn’t need to do that. We are all sinners. Im such a screw up, my friend Eric gave me a list of behaviors i had to maintain ( which i’ve done a much better job of), and I signed in blood. We all make mistakes and are learning. Seeking God is hard work, but believing Him is easy. God bless

  84. Eric, I love when you go after one word Woosbald. You seem to get the best out of him. I just get one liners and then he goes get a smoke and Super Mario. He called me a troll this morning. Man i’m a good looking dude, just ask my wife.

  85. Eric, watch it bro, we got family if you know what I mean. HA! HA!

  86. Kevin–

    You’re “Cosa Nostra”?

    Well, I’ll definitely mind my p’s and q’s from now on!

    ***************************************************

    (BTW, only 14 more to go till we hit 1000 on this thread. We can do it!)

  87. Eric, the little book on baptism is good.

  88. Kevin–

    It’ll be a little while before I can get to it. I read a couple of reviews and didn’t like what I read, but hey….

    Can you give me a brief rundown on his ideas on “covenant household” and his notions on the (in)efficacy of sacrament and the downplaying of personal conversion? He sounds thoroughly Old School to me.

  89. Kevin,

    Erick, thats nonsense, no infused medicine. Galations 3:1-6 says explicitly that the Spirit is received by hearing of faith, and the working the Spirit in sanctification is by faith. It is all a result of the forensic justification in verse 1. I have explained this to you before. The righteousness that comes from outside us doesn’t stay outside us. The Spirit brings Christ (notice there he says spirit of Christ) and all the benefits to our heart , so that for those in Christ they are justified and are now being sanctified as they walk in the Spirit. Notice he doesn’t say we fulfill the Law, but christ fulfilled it past tense, and he did it in us, not by us , it is passive voice. Very important.

    Thomas Schreiner says concerning Romans 8:3
    But the flow of thought here suggests that the term ‘condemnation’ cannot be confined to forensic categories; believers are no longer under condemnation since they are no longer under the dominion of sin (Murray 1959; 274-275, 282; Gundry 1985:31-32).

    This is a protestant scholar. A reformed baptist scholar. Read his commentary on Romans, as well as his book on perseverance on Amazon.

    If protestants are realizing this, shouldn’t you pay more attention? If the famous John Murray disagrees with you, would you give it a thought?

  90. Eric,

    None of what you said combats anything I’ve said. That doesn’t mean you cannot demonstrate “how” it does, if that is your opinion. At the end of the day, an Anglican ordination is not valid in a presbyterian church. A presbyterian ordination is not a valid ordination in the presbyterian church. A reformed baptist pastor who ordains himself is not a valid ordination in either.

    This sort of thing is “normal” and “acceptable” in today’s standards. But it is crazy! Can you imagine such divinsion in Crete when Paul sent Titus to ordain bishops? Would the apostles ordain such division?

  91. Eric, When I finish, I will give you a review.

  92. Erick–

    You said:

    “None of what you said combats anything I’ve said.”

    Can’t you see that this is just “bad form”? (How likely am I to reply, “Wow, you’re right, I didn’t make my case at all! Sure glad you pointed that out to me. Embarrassing….”)

    An Anglican ordination is indeed valid in a Lutheran church (for they have what is called “pulpit fellowship”). Most denominations make it pretty easy for pastors to get re-credentialed. You do have to agree to a new, slightly different set of doctrines.

    What sort of thing are you finding “crazy”? The overlap and cooperation between Protestant denominations? (That should be a “good” thing, shouldn’t it? Unity and all?) The division between denominations is crazy? (How on earth is anyone supposed to stop it? It’s a free country!) What are we supposed to do, re-institute the Inquisition? The Catholic church was once quite good at keeping everyone in line. If you stepped outside its bounds, you were outside society, outside the legitimate economy, on the wrong side of the criminal justice system. Do you honestly relish a return to pre-modern tyranny?

  93. Jason–

    Italics are stuck in the “on” position on this thread. Can you fix it, please?

  94. Jason–

    The more I have looked into this post of yours, the less sense it makes. There is absolutely no clear, direct causal connection between baptism and salvation (or even the remission of sins). Such interpretations rely on a number of vague prepositions which can go various ways meaning-wise. Baptism is connected to death, burial, resurrection, new birth, washing away of sins, crossing the Red Sea, safely navigating the global flood, as well as faith, repentance, commitment, obedience, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Exactly how could it be a definitive match for any of these?

    Did you bother to go to the commentaries before posting this? It seems lazy and reckless. Why did you have trouble explaining baptism to your former congregants? There are plenty of Protestant interpretations which make as much or more sense than the Catholic version. That there is simply no abundant clarity from Scripture on this issue is an incredible understatement.

    Baptism now “saves” you (kind of like Noah and his family were “saved” through the water). Saved from physical death? Rescued from the judgment of God? Apparently, neither one of these.

    NOT through the removal of dirt from the body. So, sins are definitely NOT washed away?

    But as an appeal to God stemming from a good conscience. We already HAVE a good conscience by the time we go forward for baptism? What the heck??

    Did you even so much as glance at any of this?

  95. Comment

  96. Lynn–

    That’s your avatar, isn’t it?

    Just wanted to comment about your last line to me:

    “It was a call for humility and prayer for all of us dear brother.”

    The whole crux of JBFA is just such a “call for humility.” If you ever meet someone who is arrogant and Reformed, well, they just don’t get it. It’s like being an awkward tightrope walker, so ungainly he’s likely to trip over his own two feet while crossing a floor. (He just might have a short career.)

  97. ERIC January 26, 2014 at 12:45 pm
    Erick–
    You keep ragging Kevin when he doesn’t answer every jot and tittle of your amazing thought. I gave you a post some time ago now where I enumerated a number of things of mine to which you still hadn’t replied. You totally ignored my post. You don’t get to come back now and say you refuted arguments which you never even addressed!

    1. I said quite strenuously that, no, there are not different kinds of faith:

    But there are different descriptors for faith. According to Scripture there are those who are weak in faith:

    Romans 14:1
    Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

    And according to you and to Kevin there is a “saving” faith.

    So if these are not different kinds of faith they are different levels of faith.

    there is possession of genuine faith

    Can a weak faith be a genuine faith? Or must a genuine faith be a deep faith?

    and there are mere claims to “faith” (and James calls this so-called “faith” useless, barren, and dead), in other words, no faith at all.

    True. He says more than that. He says that a dead faith is a faith which is not accompanied by works:
    James 2:17
    Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

    He says that faith alone is dead. Therefore, JBFA, is a false doctrine.

    Dead love is not inactive love: rather it is NOT love in any sense. (In fact, dead love sometimes goes beyond indifference into hatred.)

    Where is the term “dead love” found in Scripture?

    As the Jesuit scholar, Thomas W. Leahy puts it: “James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but merely of the making of such a claim.”

    And that is precisely the objection to JBFA. It is a mere claim which Protestants make. The only one who judges a man’s faith is God.

    2. Essentially, neither faith nor works contribute anything.

    That is the teaching of Trent:

    CHAPTER VIII
    HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

    But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.

    Faith is merely the gracious means whereby CHRIST saves us. Why would he need our works to save us? Why would he need any assistance whatsoever? The thought is ludicrous.

    Yes, it is. We don’t help Jesus Christ to save us by our works. They are prerequisites for salvation:

    Romans 2:13
    King James Version (KJV)
    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    Only those who do the works of God will be saved. Those who reject the Commandments will not be saved:

    Revelation 22:12-15
    King James Version (KJV)
    12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

    13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

    14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

    15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    Anyone who claims to be saved by faith alone and rejects or disobeys the Commandments will be condemned.

    Like pregnancy, salvation either is or it isn’t One cannot be “a little bit” pregnant. That doesn’t mean, however, that one doesn’t grow in pregnancy…or that sleep and nutrition and exercise are unhelpful.

    Like pregnancy, salvation can also be lost.

    3. Works are NOT mere evidence but add substantially to our sanctification.

    Absolutely true and this moves you closer to the Catholic Teaching.

    2 Timothy 2:20-22
    King James Version (KJV)
    20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

    21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

    22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

    4. I haven’t addressed Abraham at all. Not even one time. I don’t believe his exact situation is normative (like you don’t believe that those who received the Holy Spirit before baptism are normative).

    All we are doing is comparing beliefs. I know that you don’t agree with the Catholic understanding of justification. But, we are comparing your explanation to Scripture and the Catholic explanation to Scripture to see which agrees more.

    Let’s take Abraham for instance. The Catholic Church teaches a progression of justification. After one is justified in baptism, one continues to perfect his faith by works of virtue increasing one’s knowledge and thus making one’s election sure.

    2 Peter 1:5
    And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

    The Catholic model fits Abraham perfectly. The Protestant model contradicts the biblical description of Abraham’s justification.

    Sometimes, I don’t know why we bother to discuss Scripture with you guys at all.

    As long as one party understands, that’s all right. I know why I discuss Scripture with Protestants. It is to show those who read these messages the Protestant doctrine contradicts Scripture.

    I mean, what does the following verse mean to Catholics:
    1 Timothy 3:2-4
    “Now a bishop must give no grounds for accusation but must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, circumspect and temperate and self-controlled; sensible and well behaved and dignified and lead an orderly life; hospitable, a capable and qualified teacher, not given to wine, not combative but gentle and considerate, not quarrelsome but forbearing and peaceable, and not a lover of money. He must rule his own household well, keeping his children under control, with true dignity, commanding their respect in every way and keeping them respectful.”

    It means that bishops must be virtuous men. What does this mean to Protestants?

    1 Corinthians 7:32
    But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

    To Catholics, this means that those who would lead the church should be unmarried. Therefore, they can focus all their attention on how they may please the Lord.

    There is no clear evidence of clerical celibacy before the beginning of the fourth century….

    Only those who have discarded the Traditions of Jesus Christ would say such a thing. Our very first priest, Jesus Christ was celibate. The Scriptures teach that he is our model. St. Paul, was celibate. Saints Titus and Timothy were celibate. And these are just the ones in scripture.

    Since Catholic Tradition clearly trumps Scripture, why should we even discuss it?

    2 Thessalonians 2:15
    King James Version (KJV)
    15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    Therefore, Scripture teaches that both preaching by word and by the written letter are Sacred Traditions. Neither one trumps the other.

    Having said that, Scripture also teaches the Jesus Christ established the church and commanded the church to teach His Traditions. It is based upon these traditions that the New Testament was written.

    Scripture says: For you are inherently disingenuous when we do. Right? (What am I missing?)

    You are missing that your doctrines contradict Scripture. You are missing then your Protestant doctrines trump Scripture period

    4) Abraham’s justification by works when he offered up Isaac on the altar finds no place within soteriology. At least as a condition to being saved. Justification in this sense merely validates the existence of saving faith which has already bound up within and through it the totality of everlasting salvation.

    This statement flatly contradicts Scripture.

    James 2:20-22
    King James Version (KJV)
    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

    22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

    Oh, and you have contradicted your statement that there are not different kinds of faith. Because here you have used the terminology, “saving” faith. Obviously, for you, there is a faith that saves and a faith that doesn’t.

  98. De Maria–

    Thanks for responding. (You made my day! I’ve been trying to get this thread to 1000 just for the heck of it.)

    1. You said: “He says that a dead faith is a faith which is not accompanied by works.” The question, De Maria, is whether that claimed “faith,” the dead one with no works attached, is genuine faith…or whether it is mere assent (which the Greek term can mean).

    2. Leahy says quite clearly that this claimed faith is NOT genuine faith.

    3. Yes, that neither faith nor works contribute to justification is indeed Trent’s (extraordinarily inconsistent) teaching. If they bothered to be consistent, they would have to endorse JBFA (as you graciously prove with one of your next lines: we cannot merit justification, but we CAN merit salvation by our works).

    4. You do realize that pregnancy was just an analogy, don’t you? You are not allowed to push it as far as you would like. Be that as it may, do you believe Mary’s pregnancy could have ended? (Regenerate faith, like the Christ child, is protected by God.)

    5. The term “saving” faith is redundant, like wet water. There is only genuine faith and a lack of faith.

  99. ERIC January 28, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    De Maria–
    Thanks for responding. (You made my day! I’ve been trying to get this thread to 1000 just for the heck of it.)
    1. You said: “He says that a dead faith is a faith which is not accompanied by works.” The question, De Maria, is whether that claimed “faith,” the dead one with no works attached, is genuine faith…or whether it is mere assent (which the Greek term can mean).

    Exactly! The question remains whether a Protestant who claims to be saved by faith alone with no works attached actually has a genuine saving faith or a mere assent.

    2. Leahy says quite clearly that this claimed faith is NOT genuine faith.

    Agreed. Especially as it pertains to Protestants who claim salvation by faith alone.

    3. Yes, that neither faith nor works contribute to justification is indeed Trent’s (extraordinarily inconsistent) teaching. If they bothered to be consistent, they would have to endorse JBFA (as you graciously prove with one of your next lines: we cannot merit justification, but we CAN merit salvation by our works).

    Trent’s Teaching is perfectly consistent with the word of God. Neither our faith nor our works merit justification. But God will not justify anyone who does not do his will by exercising his faith and works of love.

    4. You do realize that pregnancy was just an analogy, don’t you? You are not allowed to push it as far as you would like.

    You do realize that you have no authority to make rules as to how far an analogy may be pushed?

    Be that as it may, do you believe Mary’s pregnancy could have ended? (Regenerate faith, like the Christ child, is protected by God.)

    Please show me from Scripture. Because the Scripture says,

    1 Timothy 1:19
    Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

    Unless, you are adding another category to faith like “regenerate” faith. Which means that there is another type of faith which is not regenerate.

    5. The term “saving” faith is redundant, like wet water.

    Then you are being redundant. Because it is you who used the term “saving” faith.

    There is only genuine faith and a lack of faith.

    That contradicts Scripture. Scripture says that there are levels of faith. Some are weak in faith, some are strong in faith, some are perfected in faith and some have a faith which is not accompanied by works, which Scripture calls a dead faith.

  100. De Maria–

    1. Get it through your head: Protestants do not claim to saved by faith alone with no works attached. They claim to be saved by grace alone THROUGH the free gift of a genuine living faith.

    2. You said:

    “Neither our faith nor our works merit justification. But God will not justify anyone who does not do his will by exercising his faith and works of love.”

    Obviously, you have no idea what the word “merit” means!

    3. Yes, I DO get to say how far the analogy gets pushed: it’s MY analogy!! (If it can’t be pushed very far, perhaps it’s not such a good analogy, but it is still mine.)

    4. Shipwrecked faith is apparent faith, not genuine faith. Sure, I know it’s a bit of a stretch exegetically. So is your position. There is no exegetically strong position in terms of explaining apostasy: is it apparent or real? For us, all genuine faith is regenerate and therefore permanent. Faith is faith is faith is faith. Yes, there is weak genuine faith and strong genuine faith. But a “faith” without works attached is dead…and no faith at all. Likewise, a “faith” that does not persevere is unprotected by God…and no faith at all. (This only contradicts your INTERPRETATION of Scripture, not Scripture itself. There is a decided difference between the two.)

  101. ERIC January 28, 2014 at 10:16 pm
    De Maria–
    1. Get it through your head:

    Getting a bit surly aren’t you?

    Protestants do not claim to saved by faith alone with no works attached.

    Is Matt Slick a Protestant?
    “If we see that the scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of our salvation, then logically, we are saved by faith alone. ”

    Is this fellow a Protestant?
    Salvation by Faith Alone – Bible Facts
    http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/salfaith.html?
    The Bible teaches that a person is saved by faith alone, not by faith and works combined.

    They claim to be saved by grace alone THROUGH the free gift of a genuine living faith.

    Same thing. They deny the efficacy of works. But Scripture is clear:
    James 2:24
    Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    2. You said:
    “Neither our faith nor our works merit justification. But God will not justify anyone who does not do his will by exercising his faith and works of love.”
    Obviously, you have no idea what the word “merit” means!

    Perhaps you don’t. Remember that explanation you gave of the use of the word, “ignorant”. It is actually correct. But those subtleties are lost on most people. They respond to the emotional content of the word and never examine the entire thought which has been expressed.

    You are doing the same with the word, “merit”. Can you understand that we don’t strictly merit anything from God, but that God can ascribe merit to anything which we do?

    For instance, when we feed the hungry, that good deed does not strictly require God to save us. But, God has obligated Himself. He has said that He will grant eternal life to those who feed the hungry. Therefore, in His eyes, this act is meritorious (Matt 25:31-46).

    3. Yes, I DO get to say how far the analogy gets pushed: it’s MY analogy!!

    Lol! Are you throwing a hissy fit?

    (If it can’t be pushed very far, perhaps it’s not such a good analogy, but it is still mine.)

    ROFL!!!

    4. Shipwrecked faith is apparent faith, not genuine faith. Sure, I know it’s a bit of a stretch exegetically.

    Yes, it is.

    So is your position.

    No.

    There is no exegetically strong position in terms of explaining apostasy: is it apparent or real?

    The Catholic position is exegetically infallible. There is a real faith which can be lost. Hebrews 6:
    4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

    5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

    6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    For us, all genuine faith is regenerate and therefore permanent. Faith is faith is faith is faith. Yes, there is weak genuine faith and strong genuine faith. But a “faith” without works attached is dead…and no faith at all. Likewise, a “faith” that does not persevere is unprotected by God…and no faith at all. (This only contradicts your INTERPRETATION of Scripture, not Scripture itself. There is a decided difference between the two.)

    Sorry Eric, you are contradicting Scripture. Scripture teaches that some people can make a shipwreck of faith. And that faith without works is dead, being alone.

  102. De Maria–

    Justification BY grace alone, THROUGH faith alone, ON ACCOUNT OF Christ alone, FOR THE GLORY OF God alone…is the whole of what we Protestants mean when we say JBFA. That grace is not without works. That faith is not without works. And certainly Christ is not without works. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling through the works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. But in all of this it is God who is at work in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure.

    IT IS NOT THAT WORKS ARE NOT ATTACHED TO OUR FAITH!!! It is merely that we are not justified by them!

  103. De Maria–

    You said:

    “Neither our faith nor our works merit justification.”

    So then, you believe in JBFA after all!! Well, good!!!

    Then you said:

    “But God will not justify anyone who does not do his will by exercising his faith and works of love.”

    I see. In other words, you haven’t the slightest clue WHAT you believe. You give with one hand and take away with the other.

  104. De Maria–

    You said:

    “Scripture teaches that some people can make a shipwreck of faith.”

    What it doesn’t teach, De Maria, is whether or not that “faith” which they possessed was viable.

  105. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 9:42 am
    De Maria–
    Justification BY grace alone, THROUGH faith alone, ON ACCOUNT OF Christ alone, FOR THE GLORY OF God alone…is the whole of what we Protestants mean when we say JBFA. That grace is not without works. That faith is not without works. And certainly Christ is not without works. We work out our salvation in fear and trembling through the works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. But in all of this it is God who is at work in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure.
    IT IS NOT THAT WORKS ARE NOT ATTACHED TO OUR FAITH!!! It is merely that we are not justified by them!

    I see. In other words, you haven’t the slightest clue WHAT you believe. You give with one hand and take away with the other.

  106. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 10:02 am
    De Maria–
    You said:
    “Scripture teaches that some people can make a shipwreck of faith.”
    What it doesn’t teach, De Maria, is whether or not that “faith” which they possessed was viable.

    It also teaches that YOU can’t judge if that faith is viable.

    2 Corinthians 5:10
    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

  107. De Maria–

    Trent:

    “Neither our faith nor our works merit justification.”

    James:

    “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

    Do you see the disconnect?

  108. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 9:58 am

    I see. In other words, you haven’t the slightest clue WHAT you believe. You give with one hand and take away with the other.

    It seems to bother you that God is the judge of merit toward salvation. Let me see the parable will help.

    Suppose that a multimillionaire is driving through a poor neighborhood. and he gets a flat tire. He’s busy on the telephone negotiating a lucrative deal. And his chauffeur is an elderly man who can’t do physical labor. But there is a man on a nearby porch who is doing nothing. And the multimillionaire offers him $10,000 to change his tire. he will provide the tools and the tire. The man on the porch merely provides the effort.

    Normally, changing a tire would cost less than $20. At the very most $100. But to the multimillionaire, time is money, and he places a value of $10,000 for this minor activity.

    It is the same with God. Our works are nothing but dirty rags. But in God’s eyes, when we work in obedience to His Word, it is as though he is working through us. And he accords merit to those works which are done in obedience to His Son. Scripture says:

    Hebrews 5:9
    And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

  109. De Maria–

    So let me get this straight. Neither our faith nor our works [strictly] merit justification, but Christ “imputes” merit to our account nonetheless…because he feels like it.

    And yet without faith and works on our part, he simply doesn’t assign any merit to us. So whether you like it or not, according to you, we merit our own salvation through our (admittedly) less than adequate faith and works.

  110. De Maria–

    So, in other words, for God, “time is money”?

  111. De Maria–

    The problem with your little illustration, as I see it, is that the raggedy “man on the porch” still gets paid for his efforts. Yes, his wages are enhanced, but they are wages nonetheless.

  112. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 10:22 am
    De Maria–
    So let me get this straight. Neither our faith nor our works [strictly] merit justification,

    Correct.

    but Christ “imputes” merit to our account nonetheless…because he feels like it.

    Because it is He who is working through us:
    Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

    And yet without faith and works on our part, he simply doesn’t assign any merit to us.

    That is according to Scripture:
    Hebrews 11:6
    But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    So whether you like it or not, according to you, we merit our own salvation through our (admittedly) less than adequate faith and works.

    I would say, ” He assigns merit for our salvation to our (admittedly) less than adequate faith and works.”

  113. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 10:26 am
    De Maria–
    So, in other words, for God, “time is money”?

    Lol! Really?

    No. Just as the multimillionaire assigned a certain value to a certain work, God assigns value to our works done in response to His grace.

  114. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 11:01 am
    De Maria–
    The problem with your little illustration, as I see it, is that the raggedy “man on the porch” still gets paid for his efforts. Yes, his wages are enhanced, but they are wages nonetheless.

    I would look at it as “rewarded”.

    Revelation 22:12
    King James Version (KJV)
    12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

    Romans 2:6-13
    King James Version (KJV)
    6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

    7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

    8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

    9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

    10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

    11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

    12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

  115. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 10:11 am
    De Maria–
    Trent:
    “Neither our faith nor our works merit justification.”
    James:
    “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
    Do you see the disconnect?

    No.

    Romans 5:6-8
    King James Version (KJV)
    6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

    7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

    8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    What amount of faith or works can you muster in that would be equal to Christ’s sacrifice?

  116. Eric,

    What amount of faith or works can you muster that would be equal to Christ’s sacrifice?

  117. De Maria–

    I cannot “muster” any faith or any good works whatsoever. You’re the one who merits his salvation by exercising his faith to produce good works of love through his own efforts. My faith is a gift from God which he exercises. He works through me to produce good deeds. He justifies me. I cannot justify myself.

    In our system, God does it all. In your system, God does it all (except for all the parts which you do).

  118. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm
    De Maria–
    I cannot “muster” any faith ….

    Then how do you please God?

    Hebrews 11:6
    But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    Yes, faith is a gift from God. But if you don’t accept that faith, or if you reject that faith and therefore can’t exercise that faith, how do you please God?

    Certainly God works through us. But in order for God to work through us, we must also work:
    Philippians 2:11-13
    King James Version (KJV)
    11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

    13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

    God is not unjust that He would forget our works which He accomplishes through us. He still attributes them to us and rewards us for them:

    Hebrews 6:10
    For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, …

  119. De Maria–

    It’s not a matter of whether or not God is pleased with our works, whether or not he remembers them or rewards us for them; it’s a matter of what he counts them as. We believe he does not count them as part of justification.

    Say you are a man with a fine eye for the arts, but awkward as all get out. You go to an exhibit one day displaying one of the Imperial Fabergé eggs once owned by the Czars of Russia. Somehow, you get your hands on it, jostle it, and break it. The current owner proves that its present value is approximately 15 million dollars and orders you to pay. You weep. Your salary, working as a manager of a convenient store is only $30,000 per year. You have no savings. It would take you literally 500 years to pay off the debt!

    A millionaire steps in, all his tires in good repair, and offers to supplement your salary. You’ll be making a good $300,000 a year. Down to 50 years of payments if you live for free off your parents. It’s doable!! You are incredibly grateful.

    But aren’t you still paying down the debt? (Our millionaire pays the entire 15 million!)

  120. ERIC January 29, 2014 at 10:39 pm
    De Maria–
    It’s not a matter of whether or not God is pleased with our works, whether or not he remembers them or rewards us for them; it’s a matter of what he counts them as. We believe he does not count them as part of justification.

    That is your word, against the Word of God:
    James 2:20-24
    King James Version (KJV)
    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

    22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    Say you are a man with a fine eye for the arts, but awkward as all get out. You go to an exhibit one day displaying one of the Imperial Fabergé eggs once owned by the Czars of Russia. Somehow, you get your hands on it, jostle it, and break it. The current owner proves that its present value is approximately 15 million dollars and orders you to pay. You weep. Your salary, working as a manager of a convenient store is only $30,000 per year. You have no savings. It would take you literally 500 years to pay off the debt!

    A millionaire steps in, all his tires in good repair, and offers to supplement your salary. You’ll be making a good $300,000 a year. Down to 50 years of payments if you live for free off your parents. It’s doable!! You are incredibly grateful.
    But aren’t you still paying down the debt? (Our millionaire pays the entire 15 million!)

    To tweak that analogy and make fit better the Christian model. The man who owns the egg is the millionaire’s father. And the millionaire says, don’t worry, I’ll pay it for you. But you need to do whatever my father tells you to do. If you do so, you can come to live in my house. But if you disobey my father, you will forfeit the payment:

    Matthew 7:21
    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    Matthew 12:50
    For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

  121. Lynn, your apology is accepted with all love. You know when your young and you are so in love with a guy that he can see no wrong in them. So many Catholics worship the church instead of Christ. And nothing anyone can ever say to them will they ever see, or respect. This is my experience with devout Catholics. From their youth they are told that the body is the head and its infallible. Paul talks about a veil over the eyes. They actually believe that these men are infallible. And yet the history they refuse to look at, because it pains them so, is the exact truth that would set them free. I really feel like I know you Lynn. You remind me so much of my friend. She cares and feels deep. But she could never come to face that maybe the man ( church) with which she fell in love in her youth isn’t who he said he was. But no Protestant will ever convince her otherwise. Lynn, Christ left us with the Spirit as the means which he communicates his body and divinity to us. We are transported to heaven were we are seated with him as we worship. The veil has been ripped away and there we are in the throne room. I hope you don’t miss seeing the real sacrifice who is in heaven because your looking in front of you. Peace, love and the resurrection.

  122. De Maria–

    Ah, I get it. Your gruff millionaire’s father lays down the law: “I paid your good-for-nothing butt out of trouble. Now, pull your own weight and try not to get in my way. Trip up even once, and I’ll throw you into my dungeon so fast it’ll make your head spin! Get on your knees and thank me before I change my mind and make you cover the debt after all…down to the last farthing.”

    De Maria, you can spin it and spin it and spin it any way you please. But as long as obedience is something one HAS to do in order to be saved in the end, one is at least in part, meriting his own salvation. Period.

    There is absolutely nothing that you can say to convince me otherwise. It would like convincing someone that the sun doesn’t come up every day because some days it is obscured by clouds. Your view is completely contrary to common sense.

  123. KEVIN January 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm
    ….So many Catholics worship the church instead of Christ. And nothing anyone can ever say to them will they ever see, or respect. This is my experience with devout Catholics.

    That’s not true. Catholics worship Christ in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

    From their youth they are told that the body is the head and its infallible.

    Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. He commanded the Catholic Church to teach his word. And Scripture says that the Catholic Church does that infallibly:

    Ephesians 3:10
    King James Version (KJV)
    10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

    Paul talks about a veil over the eyes. They actually believe that these men are infallible.

    It is the Catholic Church which infallibly wrote the New Testament. Therefore, we have proof of the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

    ….But no Protestant will ever convince her otherwise.

    Because Protestants preach error. Sola Scriptura and sola Fide contradict Scripture.

    …Christ left us with the Spirit as the means which he communicates his body and divinity to us. We are transported to heaven were we are seated with him as we worship. The veil has been ripped away and there we are in the throne room. I hope you don’t miss seeing the real sacrifice who is in heaven because your looking in front of you.

    You have described the worship of the Catholic Church. That is precisely what happens in the Mass.

    Peace, love and the resurrection.

    And you,

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

  124. Eric,

    Only those who do good will enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Matthew 7:21
    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    Does that make God the Father GRUFF in your eyes?

  125. De Maria–

    Yes, as far as I am concerned, you serve a gruff and graceless taskmaster.

    I pity you.

  126. Eric,

    Thanks for your honesty. It will be easy for all to see that you are directly opposed to the will of God revealed in Scripture.

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

  127. Eric, you have a way of saying things. That is so true. Without purgatory, Roman Catholicism is a hard sell. Never knowing if your in. Participating in your salvation by your works. The threat of mortal sin throwing you out again. Pity is the right word.

  128. Mateo, Lynn, You do realize that Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence. And you know that transubstantiation came into the church in 1200 or so. We reformed believe in the real presence. But not in the same way. Jesus natural body is in heaven. Catholics forget that he left us the spirit. We believe we are truly feeding on Christ they the Spirit the word and truth. We don’t collapse the sign into the signified so that he is locally in the bread and the wine. He is in the sacrament and communicated His body and divinity to us thru the Spirit. A sacrament is a sign and seal of the thing signified. It is God’s gift of grace to us. But it isn’t a work and a sacrifice by which the participant purchases more justice and grace and propitiates His own sin. Its a meal at a table not a sacrifice. Augustine said it is the visible word. But to localize His natural body goes against scripture because he said he left us the Spirit, and he said He wouldn’t eat with us again until He comes back. Augustine said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until He comes again. and we eagerly wait Him. Cosmic Jesus everywhere is jesus of nazareth nowhere.

  129. De Maria–

    I sometimes wonder what on earth goes through your head when you say certain things.

    It will be easy for ALL to see that I am directly opposed to the will if God revealed in Scripture.

    I realize that there are over a billion Catholics across the globe. But you do know that there are more than two or three of us Protestants, right? Like somewhere around 600 million. Are you so confident that ALL of the Protestants who read this blog will side with you? I must admit, that takes some MAJOR cajones!

    For my part, I think your exegesis in general is reasonable. Clearly wrong, but still reasonable. It is in no way easy for people to decide between these paradigms. But, in your heart of hearts, you already know that’s true. (Or at least a guy can hope.)

  130. Kevin,

    When will you answer your own question:

    Did the woman at the well make a shipwreck of her soul if she continued living in adultery?

  131. Eric,

    I think you and I have come to a point where the tire hits the road.

    a. You have admitted that faith must have works in order to be salvific. I find it hard to understand then, why you insist that salvific (saving) faith is alone. I understand that we are justified by our faith. That is Catholic Teaching. You admit that faith is a working faith. Yet you insist on calling it alone.

    b. You have admitted that a question remains whether one who claims faith alone has genuine faith. In other words, God alone knows the answer to that question. Yet, you continue to insist that faith alone saves.

    Eric, your proclaimed beliefs are self contradicting.

  132. DeMaria, Ya i’ll answer your statement. If she was really a believer ( which she was), yes she was saved. If she is truly saved she will leave that lifestyle. Are you telling me that Christ’s blood doesn’t cover those sins. I was in a relationship for a while after I became a christian and felt the conviction of God to get out. But I came from a real sinful lifestyle. I slept with almost every girl I ever met. But I came out of that life in short order. Was that not the Spirit convicting me DeMaria? Was I not a believer. Paul says the man who had his father’s wife was a believer.

  133. Kevin,

    You answered a different question. Not the one you posed. Here’s the comparison.

    KEVIN February 1, 2014 at 7:12 am
    DeMaria, Ya i’ll answer your statement. If she was really a believer ( which she was), yes she was saved. If she is truly saved she will leave that lifestyle….

    That is the Catholic answer.

    KEVIN January 29, 2014 at 12:22 pm
    ….The woman at well was saved that day. What if she went home and didn’t kick that guy out for a month. Did she make shipwreck of her soul?

    Answer this question Kevin. You said she didn’t change. So, what if she went home and didn’t kick that guy out for a month. Did she make shipwreck of her soul?

  134. De Maria–

    Faith is a free gift from God. It is the gift itself–and not the use of the gift–which saves.

    Faith does not HAVE to have works in order to be salvific. This is true for Catholics, as well. The thief on the cross had no tangible works, and yet we all know that he was saved “by his faith” (and a genuine faith, at that: it was by no means “dead” or “useless”). Had he gotten a reprieve and been taken down from the cross, we all believe that he would have been a faithful disciple.

    A genuine, living, working faith is “alone” when we consider it aside from the works it produces. It itself is not alone; it has works immediately attached. But God only considers that which Christ has done and continues to do for us, not what WE do for God or others or ourselves. Important as our obedient response is, it does not save us. CHRIST saves us, and Christ alone.

    And yes, only God knows to whom he has given the gift. Some with few visible works may be strong in the Lord in more subtle, less noticeable ways. Some with many visible works may be doing them in the flesh…and do not in fact know Christ.

    Now, you’ll have to explain to me. How is any of this “self-contradictory”?

  135. ERIC February 1, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    De Maria–
    Faith is a free gift from God. It is the gift itself–and not the use of the gift–which saves.

    On the contrary, if one receives the gift of faith and does not use it, he has received that gift in vain. Faith that does not express itself in love, is dead:
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

    Faith does not HAVE to have works in order to be salvific. This is true for Catholics, as well. The thief on the cross had no tangible works, and yet we all know that he was saved “by his faith” (and a genuine faith, at that: it was by no means “dead” or “useless”). Had he gotten a reprieve and been taken down from the cross, we all believe that he would have been a faithful disciple.

    Thanks for bringing him up.

    1st. There is a big difference between the Good Thief and Protestant behavior. The Good Thief did not proclaim himself saved because of faith alone. Jesus Christ announced that he was saved and gave no particular reason.

    2nd. It is Catholic Doctrine that God can save us at any time in our lives.

    TRENT VI CHAPTER XII
    RASH PRESUMPTION OF PREDESTINATION IS TO BE AVOIDED

    No one, moreover, so long as he lives this mortal life, ought in regard to the sacred mystery of divine predestination, so far presume as to state with absolute certainty that he is among the number of the predestined,[74] as if it were true that the one justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he does sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance.

    FOR EXCEPT BY SPECIAL REVELATION, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN WHOM GOD HAS CHOSEN TO HIMSELF.

    A genuine, living, working faith is “alone” when we consider it aside from the works it produces. It itself is not alone; it has works immediately attached. But God only considers that which Christ has done and continues to do for us, not what WE do for God or others or ourselves. Important as our obedient response is, it does not save us. CHRIST saves us, and Christ alone.

    That is a blatant contradiction of the Word of God:
    Romans 2:13
    (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    Galatians 5:6
    For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

    And yes, only God knows to whom he has given the gift. Some with few visible works may be strong in the Lord in more subtle, less noticeable ways. Some with many visible works may be doing them in the flesh…and do not in fact know Christ.

    This is true. But again, God is their judge.

    Now, you’ll have to explain to me. How is any of this “self-contradictory”?

    Certainly. You insist that faith must be accompanied by works in order to be a saving faith. In the same breath you claim that we are saved by faith alone. Contradiction.

  136. De Maria–

    You make me smile! 🙂

  137. All you need now, is a coke. ; )

    Have a blessed day.

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

  138. De Maria–

    And all you need are good textbooks on rudimentary hermeneutics…and exegesis…and grammar…and logic…and–

    Happy reading!! 🙂

  139. DeMaria, thats the whole point of the Reformation. The righteousness that saves us is not our own. It comes from outside us. ” But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness go God has been revealed. This is not a righteousness that comes from the Law. But is apart from all Law. Thats why Calvin said anyone who uses Romans 2 to support justification by Law in any way will get the just recompense they deserve. The whole point of Romans 2 was to say we are all condemned under Law and that no man will be justified by it. Only by faith. Its all over the Epistles and you can’t see it. You are under a delusion.

  140. Kevin,

    In order to put on Christ we must put on the breastplate of righteousness. We must take up our cross and follow His steps.

  141. De Maria–

    Enough talk. Do it already! Take up your cross and follow after Him. We’re here on the other side of the crick, waiting for you, hard on His trail….

  142. Eric

    Are you saying that you will not take up your cross?

  143. Eric, Oh man, how good was that!

  144. DeMaria, We take up our cross each day with the peace in our heart, that we have passed out of judgment into life, not having a righteousness of our own, but the one that comes thru faith in Him. And we PTL that we have been sealed in the Spirit with an inheritance that won’t fade away, reserved in heaven for us. Jump on His mercy wagon DeMaria, the train is going to Zion and it ain’t coming back.

  145. De Maria–

    I’m saying I already have.

    Now, it’s your turn…..

  146. Eric,

    I have taken up my cross. The difference between you and Ibis that I leave to God to judge whether I havd done zo worthily. You have judged yourself, you can ha e your reward. I willawait God’s.

  147. Eric,
    I have taken up my cross. The difference between you and I is that I leave it to God to judge whether I have done so worthily. You have judged yourself, you can have your reward. I will await God’s.

  148. KEVIN February 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm
    DeMaria, We take up our cross each day with the peace in our heart, that we have passed out of judgment into life, not having a righteousness of our own, but the one that comes thru faith in Him. And we PTL that we have been sealed in the Spirit with an inheritance that won’t fade away, reserved in heaven for us. Jump on His mercy wagon DeMaria, the train is going to Zion and it ain’t coming back.

    I hope in God, not in your word. Scripture tells me:

    Titus 2:12-14
    King James Version (KJV)
    12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

    13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

    14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

    Yessir, I PTL that I have been washed, sanctified and justified in His Blood which I receive everyday in the Holy Eucharist. And I live my life in hope of the resurrection, putting on everyday the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of hope:

    1 Thessalonians 5:7-9
    King James Version (KJV)
    7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

    8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

    9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

    Everyday I live unto the Lord:
    Galatians 5:5
    For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

    Yeah, you have Scriptures. I have more! You have sayings, I have more! Because the word of God is with me. Righteousness is with me! Faith is with me! The Hope of Resurrection is with me! God is with me! Yours are the lies of the Protestants. Yours are the traditions of men! Yours are the imaginations of the unruly and lawless mind which makes up whatever you want in order to avoid and reject the truth.

    One day, you will learn. I hope it isn’t too late.

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

  149. De Maria–

    Two can play that game:

    Yeah, you have an interpretation of Scripture spoon fed to you by your “church.” We have the Scripture itself! You have man-made dogmas, We have biblically-derived doctrines! Because the Word of God is with us. Righteousness is with us! Faith is with us! The Hope of Resurrection is with us! God is with us! Yours are the lies of the Catholics. Yours are the traditions of men! Yours are the imaginations of the unruly and lawless mind which leaves its decisions up to a corrupt and evil human institution….

    I seriously doubt that you will ever learn. I don’t think you even want to. You’re quite content with the form of religion while denying its power.

  150. Its not a game Eric. We believe the Word of God and have the humility to submit to the Church which Scripture calls the pillar and fondation of truth (1 T im 3:15 () and the Teacher of God’s wisdom (Eph 3:10 ).

  151. De Maria–

    Yes, you’ve been bamboozled. I get that. So?

    (It just so happens that the Roman Catholic “church” is NOT the church which Scripture speaks of…which is actually holy and true and wise…and doesn’t just pretend to be.)

  152. Scripture describes a church whic is

    Infallible 1 Tim 3:15
    Which holds Traditions. 2 Thess 2:15
    Which is authoritative Heb 13:17
    Which revere s those who went before Heb 13:7
    Which offers an efficacious baptism Mark 16:16

    Scripture does not teach sola scriptura nor sola fide.

  153. Eric, are you sure you want to keep trying with this guy? There is no flexibility. The Roman church wrote the bible and we should just accept it.

  154. Kevin–

    Did people give up on you?

    De Maria–

    1 Timothy 3:14-15.

    “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.”

    In other words, Paul’s writing (which became Scripture) is to inform the church, whose purpose is to uphold these truths. Authority descends from Apostle to Scripture to Church: Sola Scriptura.

    If the church had its own imprimatur, Paul’s message would have been superfluous.

  155. Eric

    You are introducing a false dichotomy into Christ’s saving plan. Jesus established the Church upon the foundation of the Apostles. They are one thing, not two.

    Jesus Christ established the Church and commanded the Church to Teach His Traditions. The Church then wrote the New Testament based on those Traditions.

    That is why Protestants can’t understand Scripture. They reject the Traditions which are the basis of Scripture

  156. De Maria–

    Or he established the church upon the Apostolic Scriptures, in which case, you’re backing the wrong horse.

  157. ERIC February 4, 2014 at 4:34 pm
    De Maria–
    Or he established the church upon the Apostolic Scriptures, in which case, you’re backing the wrong horse.

    Do you even think about what you are saying?

    For the sake of those who may not know, Scripture teaches that Christ established the Church upon the Rock of Peter and the Foundation of the Apostles. But there were no Apostolic Scriptures at the time upon which to build a Church. The Church wrote the Scriptures, (i.e. the New Testament) based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

    So, no, Jesus did not build a Church upon any Apostolic Scriptures. The Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Traditions (i.e. Teachings) of Jesus Christ.

  158. DeMaria, there is a good chance Peter was never in Rome. Paul wrote Romans and Timothy while in Rome 50 ad. and in all his greetings never mentions Peter in the Epistles. Paul said that he was charged with the gospel to the Gentiles like Peter was to the Jews. He may have been in rome, but he never Pastored a church there.

  159. Kevin,

    If you believe the fables of those who hate truth and oppose the Church of Christ.

    1 Timothy 4:7
    But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

    But if you follow truth and believe the Church which Jesus Christ established, you know that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    Yeah, you people are blown in all the winds of doctrine. You don’t believe the Word of God but the traditions of men which will lead you to destruction.

  160. DeMaria, my guess is you have never looked into the list of Popes and how it was composed, and the false documents the church had to use to revise the list etc. It reads like a bad movie. Old wives fable. There were Popes and antipopes. Sometimes there were more than one Pope. Spurgeon said this ” Of all the dreams that have ever deluded men, and of all the blasphemies that have ever been uttered in all manner of mischief, is that the Bishop of rome could be the head of the church on Earth. No, these Popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead. But Christ is the head of His church and the church forever lives in him. The Pope didn’t come form heaven to earth, he didn’t pour out His life for his people. That a mere sinful man like ourselves could be put up as the Vicar of God. Christ did not come to earth to die for his people to have the Pope come in and steal the glory.”

  161. De Maria–

    Do YOU even think about what you are saying?

    “For the sake of those who may not know, Scripture teaches that Christ established the Church upon the Rock of Peter and the Foundation of the Apostles. But there were no Apostolic Scriptures at the time upon which to build a Church. The Church wrote the Scriptures, (i.e. the New Testament) based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.”

    So, let me get this straight, the SCRIPTURES teach that Christ established the Church in spite of the fact that there were NO SCRIPTURES at the time to teach this. That’s some right good thinking there!

    And then the Church (and not the Apostles) wrote the Scriptures to make sure everyone would know that Christ established it. (There are scholars who believe crap like this. I didn’t think you were one of them!)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you screwed up. Go back and fix it. Everything’s OK. Nobody thinks you’re a dweeb….

  162. Yes Eric

    The New Testament records that Jesus first established the Church and that the Church later wrote the New Testament.

    If you believe that the New Testament Scriptures existed before the Church , you meed to provide some evidence better than your opinion.

    Oh yeah, why so surly?

  163. Kevin

    Don’t believe the anti-christian hype. Christ established the Catholic Church and promised the Church would always stand.

  164. De Maria–

    You said:

    “The New Testament records that Jesus first established the Church and that the Church later wrote the New Testament.”

    How can the NT record that the Church later wrote the NT?

    You also said:

    “If you believe that the New Testament Scriptures existed before the Church , you need to provide some evidence better than your opinion.”

    You yourself stated that the establishment of the Church is recorded within the NT itself. So NT Scriptures existed (i.e., they began) before the beginning point of the church. Yes, there were NT books written after that point, as well. But if their authority does not supersede the authority of the church, then the authority of the church is circular (it depends upon Scripture which depends upon the church which depends upon Scripture which depends upon the church…).

    Not surly in the slightest. I got a big smile on my face. (You’re my comic relief!) 🙂

  165. DeMaria, the cannon existed. You put the existing books in order. Thank you. The Word created the church and not vice versa.

  166. DeMaria, even Ratzinger recently acknowledged the democracy amongst the early Bishops. There was no Lording over. Later the bishop of Rome came to have respect, but there was never Apostolic succession in the terms you describe.There wasn’t even a bishop in Rome for the first 100 years or so.

  167. ERIC February 5, 2014 at 9:42 am
    De Maria–
    You said:
    “The New Testament records that Jesus first established the Church and that the Church later wrote the New Testament.”

    Correct.

    How can the NT record that the Church later wrote the NT?

    The New Testament records that Jesus established the Catholic Church here:
    Matthew 16:18
    King James Version (KJV)
    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    And Scripture records that the ministry of the still unwritten New Testament was given to the Church, here:

    2 Corinthians 3:6
    Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    The New Testament records that holy men were inspired to PREACH the Teachings of Jesus Christ, here:
    2 Peter 1:19-21
    King James Version (KJV)
    19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    Therefore, the New Testament records that the Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Commands:
    Matthew 28:19-20
    King James Version (KJV)
    19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

    And that the Church later, wrote the New Testament Scriptures. History also records this and you can get an approximate date for the writing of the Gospels and the Epistles. All of which are many years after the death and resurrection of Christ and many years after the Pentecost.

    You also said:
    “If you believe that the New Testament Scriptures existed before the Church , you need to provide some evidence better than your opinion.”
    You yourself stated that the establishment of the Church is recorded within the NT itself. So NT Scriptures existed (i.e., they began) before the beginning point of the church.

    Rofl! Are you kidding? This can’t be a serious question.

    Ok, let’s walk through an example. Jesus Christ established the Church. The Church later wrote about Jesus Christ and how He established the Church in their first document, the New Testament.

    Now, let’s say that you establish a Linguistic Society. Then a year later, your linguistic group writes about how you established the Society a year ago in their first Newsletter.

    You see how that works?

    Yes, there were NT books written after that point, as well. But if their authority does not supersede the authority of the church, then the authority of the church is circular (it depends upon Scripture which depends upon the church which depends upon Scripture which depends upon the church…).
    Not surly in the slightest. I got a big smile on my face. (You’re my comic relief!) 🙂

    I’m glad. Because you can’t be serious with that line of questioning. Thanks for the laugh.

  168. KEVIN February 5, 2014 at 10:09 am
    DeMaria, the cannon existed. You put the existing books in order. Thank you. The Word created the church and not vice versa.

    The Canon existed, after the Church wrote it.

  169. KEVIN February 5, 2014 at 10:19 am
    DeMaria, even Ratzinger recently acknowledged the democracy amongst the early Bishops. There was no Lording over. Later the bishop of Rome came to have respect, but there was never Apostolic succession in the terms you describe.

    There’s never been any lording over in the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ appointed Peter the Rock and his authority has always been acknowledged by the entire Church.

    There wasn’t even a bishop in Rome for the first 100 years or so.

    You need to start reading true history rather than the complicated fables written by anti-Christians.

  170. DeMaria, what do you mean the church of Rome wrote it? The 27 books were written and recognized before the Roman church put them in alphabetical order. the first church out of the New Testament was in Jerusalem, not Rome. Incidentally, how can rome be a universal church when the word Rome is specific?

  171. Kevin,

    Good question. It’s just the location of Peter’s successor. It would be like saying New York International Meeting or California’s inter-continental community.

  172. All I can tell you Kevin, is read your history. The anti-Catholic propaganda which is your mainstay is a pile of lies put together by those who oppose the Church of Jesus Christ.

  173. All of II Thessalonians is so clear about the importance of the Church, tradition etc…

    “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
    that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
    II Thes 3:6

  174. DeMaria, Mathew 15:9 ” In vain glory do they worship me , teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” “And why do you break the commandment for the sake of your tradition.”

  175. Eric, I thought you might find this interesting. Here is what Luther said ” Let others decide for themselves what they have learned from scholastic theology. As far as Im concerned I know and confess i’ve learned nothing from it but ignorance of sin, righteousness, Baptism, and the whole Christian life. I not only learned nothing ( which could be tolerated) but what I did learn I only had to unlearn again.” The Holy scriptures and Christian faith are little taught, and the blind, heathen master Aristotle rules alone , even more than Christ. ” they mix the dreams of Aristotle with theological matters, and conduct nonsensical disputations about the majesty of God, beyond and against the privilege granted to them.” Interesting.

  176. DeMaria, J C Ryle said, men are apt to confuse orthodoxy with conversion, and to fancy that they must go to heaven if they know how to answer the Papist. According to Calvin , God alone is the Lord of the conscience, the church is not, and the church has no legislative power , it has but to proclaim the law of Christ. The church and its leaders and sacraments do not function between God and his people in a mediatorial manner, because in Scripture Jesus Christ alone is clearly said to be our only mediator and means of saving grace. The church can lead someone to Christ, but fiducia is solely the work of the Spirit. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that Apostles appointed Bishops. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that Jesus Christ or his Apostles called a church into being with such a rigidly structured institutional Hierarchy as purported by Romanism. Outside of Scripture the history of the Early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Roman church. The word priest is Hierus and is mentioned 400 times in the OT. It is never mentioned in the NT. Christ is the only high Priest. RC priesthood contradicts 1 Peter 2:5-9, Romans 5:1-2, Ephesians 2:18, James 5:16, Col 3:16. RC Hierarchy were not godly followers and obedient servants of Christ. Consider these things.

  177. Debbie, you seem to be new here. Let me welcome you to the site. You don’t have to worry about DeMaria, he really is nice guy. Most of the people are forthright and honest people, they don’t hide anything. I’m a big fan of 2 Thessalonians also. A couple verses you might find interesting. 2:3″ Let nobody deceive you, for it will not come until the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and EXALTS himself above every so called god of object of worship, so he takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” Are you Reformed?

  178. Kevin,
    No, I’m not new, I follow this blog avidly and pop in once in a while.
    Yes, I am your friend Debbie – just wanted to clear that up.

    Right before our Lord ascended into heaven he directed the eleven apostles (not any old believer at the time) to go to the mountain, they saw him and worshiped him; but some doubted:
    “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and makes disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them TO OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, and behold, I am with you always to the close of the age.”

    Doesn’t get any clearer than that – He commanded the apostles to teach observance of some things HE had commanded them (nothing was written yet to learn from). And no, our dear St. Paul wasn’t there. He had to learn what they had been commanded by the CHURCH (again, no written scripture for him to learn from yet). Pretty important this whole idea of apostolic succession. The gates of Hell will not prevail against what our Lord established. Even more important that the CHURCH eventually put together the bible so that you could believe. I’d say you have a lot to be thankful for. But I know that your heart knows that.

    So I’ll pop out – I’ll be out of town, but wanted to say hi.

  179. KEVIN February 6, 2014 at 12:50 pm
    DeMaria, Mathew 15:9 ” In vain glory do they worship me , teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” “And why do you break the commandment for the sake of your tradition.”

    Hm? What commandment are you talking about? It is the Catholic Church which preaches keeping the Commandments. It is you who preaches that you don’t need to keep the Commandments. So, what are you talking about?

    Oh, and it is you who teach commandments of men. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and all the solar are commandments of men. They all contradict Scripture.

  180. Debbie, I knew it was you, could you tell by my post. Please see a Priest before you misquote passages so you can understand them properly. Paul said that he was no less an Apostle than any other. He was received as such by Peter and the Rest. He even confronted Peter is acts 15 and rebuked him for trying to change the Gospel. Peter repented. James gave the final word in matter, not Peter. Peter was the first Apostle mentioned and a leader but he simply called himself an Apostle and a fellow elder. There was no lording over.Paul said he was charged with the Gospel to the Gentiles just like Peter was to the Jews. Peter was never in Rome and he certainly never Pastored a church in Rome. It would be instructive for you to go understand that Acts 15 debate. Deb the church wasn’t established until the book of Acts, and Paul was an equal Apostle. Debbie I want you to think about something I’m about to tell you. Romans 4:16 “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be GUARANTEED to all his descendants , not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all.” Deb, salvation is guaranteed to those of us who believe. Why? Because God wanted us to have the consolation and peace now, that He promises in Romans 5:1, and because God gets immediate Glory. Psalms says “Salvation is from the Lord.” The Gospel for we Reformed is all about God’s Glory. Paul say the righteous shall live by faith so it follows that we are justified by faith, and not love or any other work.. Deb, if it were by our works at all, He wouldn’t get all the glory. And if He didn’t guarantee salvation to us now, it wouldn’t be called the Good News. He says we are adopted. Deb,This goes by the Catholic mind. Adoption happens before the relationship starts. You said last week its not supposed to be that easy. But our acceptance before God, John says, is simply receiving Him. Our life of picking up our cross and following Him as we pursue Holiness, we do it as Paul says Rejoice in the Lord always and Again I say Rejoice. We have been justified, not by a righteousness of our own, but that which comes from Christ thru faith. You have been taught that god gives you the magic juju to help and your left to your own salvation. That isn’t the Gospel. I’ll be honest with you, you are in a church that teaches you that you participate in your salvation by your works. Grace is a reward in the catholic church and not a gift. A sacrament is a work on the part of the participant to merit an increase of grace and justice, instead of God’s free gift of grace. As Robert rightly said, there is no sacramental system in the Scripture whereby we merit our salvation thru a lifetime of doing them.. The twisted sacrifice of the mass is a re breaking of our Lord’s body, immolation, whereby the participant merits an increase of grace and justice for Himself and his dead friends. It is also a sacrifice of that person to purchase more efficacy. Bryan Cross has confirmed everything I have said. I pointed out to Him that Hebrews 10:18 says there is no more sacrifices for sin. He tries to say that means animal sacrifices, but it says not any. He is constrained by the word. And Christ’s incarnation is a finished act that did what he said he accomplished redemption. It isn’t being finished in the church by the participant in the acts of the church. Deb, in the end the church can lead us to Christ but fiducuia ( faith) is a work of the Spirit. Take care

  181. KEVIN February 6, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    DeMaria, J C Ryle said, men are apt to confuse orthodoxy with conversion, and to fancy that they must go to heaven if they know how to answer the Papist. According to Calvin , God alone is the Lord of the conscience, the church is not, and the church has no legislative power , it has but to proclaim the law of Christ.

    As I said, you follow traditions of men.

    Here is what Scripture says:
    Matthew 18:17
    King James Version (KJV)
    17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

    Hebrews 13:17
    King James Version (KJV)
    17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    Sooooo, you can believe your men. I will believe the Scripture.

    The church and its leaders and sacraments do not function between God and his people in a mediatorial manner,

    2 Corinthians 5:20
    Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    because in Scripture Jesus Christ alone is clearly said to be our only mediator

    There is one mediator by nature. But we are mediators by grace:
    orinthians 11:1
    Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

    1 Timothy 2:1-2
    King James Version (KJV)
    2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

    2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

    and means of saving grace.

    That is true. Christ is the source of saving grace.

    The church can lead someone to Christ,

    Thus mediating between God and man. Do you understand that leading someone to Christ is a form of mediation?

    but fiducia is solely the work of the Spirit.

    Nope. Faith is a gift of the Spirit and a work of God with which we cooperate. If we don’t accept faith and exercise it, we will be condemned. That is the Teaching of the Church in the New Testament (Matthew 25:13-34).

    There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that Apostles appointed Bishops.

    Only if you don’t understand Scripture. The very first evidence is the fact that Jesus Christ is our Bishop and all the rulers of the Church are ambassadors of Christ:
    1 Peter 2:25
    For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    2 Corinthians 5:20
    Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that Jesus Christ or his Apostles called a church into being with such a rigidly structured institutional Hierarchy as purported by Romanism.

    1 Corinthians 12:28
    And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

    Hebrews 13:17
    King James Version (KJV)
    17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    Matthew 18:17
    King James Version (KJV)
    17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

    Outside of Scripture the history of the Early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Roman church. The word priest is Hierus and is mentioned 400 times in the OT. It is never mentioned in the NT. Christ is the only high Priest. RC priesthood contradicts 1 Peter 2:5-9, Romans 5:1-2, Ephesians 2:18, James 5:16, Col 3:16. RC Hierarchy were not godly followers and obedient servants of Christ. Consider these things.

    Scripture describes the Catholic Church. History declares that the Catholic Church was the first and shows that it has been organized exactly the same from day one.

    It is only your anti-Catholic bias and the anti-Catholic propaganda which you read which is in conflict with the truth.

  182. KEVIN February 6, 2014 at 5:00 pm
    Debbie, I knew it was you, could you tell by my post. Please see a Priest before you misquote passages so you can understand them properly…..

    1. Nope. She didn’t misquote any passage. And from what I read, she understood the passage perfectly. If you’re going to make that accusation, you need to show where she misquoted or used it improperly in any way.

    2. You didn’t address her point. All you have done is tried to drown out her message in a torrent of words none of which speak to the point which she made.

    C’mon Kevin. Your ploy is transparent as glass. Address the points which Debbie made.

    DEBBIE February 6, 2014 at 8:22 am
    All of II Thessalonians is so clear about the importance of the Church, tradition etc…
    “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
    that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
    II Thes 3:6

    DEBBIE February 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm
    Kevin,
    No, I’m not new, I follow this blog avidly and pop in once in a while.
    Yes, I am your friend Debbie – just wanted to clear that up.
    Right before our Lord ascended into heaven he directed the eleven apostles (not any old believer at the time) to go to the mountain, they saw him and worshiped him; but some doubted:
    “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and makes disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them TO OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, and behold, I am with you always to the close of the age.”
    Doesn’t get any clearer than that – He commanded the apostles to teach observance of some things HE had commanded them (nothing was written yet to learn from). And no, our dear St. Paul wasn’t there. He had to learn what they had been commanded by the CHURCH (again, no written scripture for him to learn from yet). Pretty important this whole idea of apostolic succession. The gates of Hell will not prevail against what our Lord established. Even more important that the CHURCH eventually put together the bible so that you could believe. I’d say you have a lot to be thankful for. But I know that your heart knows that.

    Here we go. Give it the good old Protestant try, for once.

  183. Deb, incidentally Paul wrote 13 epistles and Peter wrote 2. Paul was a leader amongst the highest Jews and knew the Law better than anyone. Peter said the things that Paul taught are difficult to understand. He taught theology. and one last thing. He didn’t learn from the other Apostles, nothing was passed down to him. He was knocked down on the Road to Damascus and given instructions directly from God. No passing down to Paul. As much as I love you Deb, your no different than all the Catholics on here. Always quoting the warning passages. Always trying to connect our good works to justification. If you think about it Romanism is the most self centered religion in the world. It makes a savior out of inherent grace and merit. Just a replay of the Pharisees. Remember this Jesus threw the gospel at the prostitutes like me and threw the Law in the face of the pharisees. I love you so much that I will tell you, if your trusting in a church, or sacraments, or Mary, or your own works in any way, Jesus will hold you to that Law, and it requires perfection. Galatians 3:10. Leni says Hi. Give our love to the Fam.

  184. Can’t and won’t even start this again.

    You are crazy and rude, you didn’t understand a thing I said and then decided to start a turf war between St. Peter and St. Paul? Really??

    I don’t know what is wrong with you.

    What you say I believe completely alludes me ….

  185. Debbie, you addresses me first today, with another judgmental verse. So, if you can’t take it leave me alone. Thank you.

  186. Debbie, you are not an honest person. For a month you knew exactly who I was, and deceived me. Great friend. And now you come back today and make your first post directly to me, but don’t put my name on it. After deceiving me for a month on here you come back and your first post takes a shot at my character. Either you don’t know the official doctrine of your church, in which case go learn it. Or you know it and try to hide from it. I know you don’t respect me. And without trust and respect there is no friendship.

  187. Kevin,

    Maybe we should return to Galatians 3:26-28

    26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    Could you at least admit to the following:

    1) Because Paul wrote a “for” at the very beginning of verse 27, his following words give a background reason for the prior group of words prior to the word “for” at the very beginning of verse 27. Please take note of that slowly and carefully.

    2) Because #1 is true, that would mean that when Paul says that “all are sons of God through faith in Christ” to imply necessarily that baptism has occurred on those who have faith. For example, if I said, We have all been scammed, for we spent money on fake phones. It is the spending money on fake phones which grounds the prior statement “we have all been scammed”. In the same way, Paul’s “for as many of us who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” grounds the prior statement “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ”. The baptism comes before sonship, and therefore faith implies the sacrament of baptism is completed. Therefore, when Paul says “we are all sons of God through faith in Christ” he means to complement this “faith” with the sacramen of baptism, rather than pitting faith against the sacrament.

    3) If you take “baptized into Christ” to mean some un-sacramental baptism, invisible and without outward form, then how do we distinguish when Paul means this and not the sacrament of baptism in water? You have already admitted that when Paul says “For Christ did not send me to baptize”, he means the sacrament of water. But just 9 chapters later, Paul uses the same word and says “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 10). In other words, what dictates that when Paul says baptism, that in some places it does not include the physical form of water?

    4) The final argument is thus: Since Paul implies the sacrament when he says “you are all sons of god through faith in Christ”, then Paul does not mean to utilize “faith” as a means of excluding sacraments but rather of including them. This would put a huge question on reformed theology, would it not?

  188. Erick, yes I agree all are sons of God thru faith in Christ, of course. To me verses 1-6 tell us the Spirit comes to us by hearing and faith. Baptism, batizo, doesn’t always mean water Baptism in the NT. So being baptized into Christ ,being buried with Him and raised in new life. Baptism is the God’s covenant mark an seal on the reality of what has happened thru faith. Peter says it isn’t the external washing but the appeal to God for a clear conscience. I believe the sign is closely tied to the signified. No, Erick i would never agree with excluding God’s covenant sign. It is closely tied. But not Ex opere operato. Regeneration comes thru hearing and faith.

  189. Deb, I was praying for you this morning. Can I suggest to you to go and follow the discussion yesterday and this morning on the other thread on Romans 4 here on Called to communion. Please read carefully all the posts but especially the ones by me, Eric W., Robert, Eric. I think you will better understand the schism that exists between Catholic gospel and the Gospel. And the intricacies of the issues. Thx Kevin

  190. Debbie–

    Just wanted to clarify something you said:

    “And no, our dear St. Paul wasn’t there. He had to learn what they had been commanded by the CHURCH (again, no written scripture for him to learn from yet). Pretty important this whole idea of apostolic succession.”

    Unfortunately, Debbie, that is not what happened:

    Galatians 1:11-17

    “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.”

    He finally went to Jerusalem three years later and stays with Peter a whole 15 days, after which he proceeds with his ministry. The only other Apostle he even sees is James, Jesus’ brother (not one of the 12). He goes to great lengths to affirm that his commission is from Jesus Christ personally and no mere man. There is no Apostolic (man-centered) Succession going on. His Apostleship is spiritually derived.

  191. Eric,

    That is why St. Paul is an Apostle of Christ. But that doesn’t mean he is independent of the Church.

    1. He acknowledges peter’s authority by referring to him as Cephas or Ro ck. Thus recognizing the office Jesus appointed for him.
    2. He acknowledges the authority of the Church by seeking out Peter to make sure he is not running in vain.
    3.
    He acknowledges the authority of the church by submitting to the baptism of Ananias.

    4. He acknowledges the authority of the Church by bringing the Gentiles into the Church.

    In all these ways and more he shows that Christ appointed him an ambassador of the Church.

  192. Eric, I know I have never met you, but I consider you not only my brother in the Lord, but a friend. What you say to Debbie is so important. Debbie will not listen to me. Debbie is who used to be Lynn on here. A week ago she called me and apologized for misleading me on here. I knew it was her by the things she said. She and her husband are dear friends of my wife and myself. She is a really a neat gal of tremendous love, and we were very close. But she kicks and screams when confronted with her church doctrine. i tell you all this because I can’t engage her anymore and maybe she will listen to you. I covet your prayers for the healing of our friendship. Thx K

  193. DeMaria, he also rebukes Peter and puts him in his place in Acts 15 when Peter was thinking about changing the gospel.

  194. De Maria–

    Paul neither set himself up as independent of the church nor dependent on the church. He is THE theologian par excellence of the Early Church era, and indeed of any church era. Scholars actually write books musing whether Paul should be considered the “founder of Christianity.” Peter is so clearly subordinated to Paul in the New Testament it’s not even funny. No, Paul doesn’t come off as the “head honcho.” He doesn’t even appear to desire such a function. But he is the principal spokesperson; he is the systematizer; he is the visionary. Only John comes anywhere close to him in terms of the influence and significance he has had on the unfolding history of Christianity.

    He does not pick up his teaching from the other Apostles or from the church, but from God himself. No wonder you all downplay his role in shaping things. He doesn’t play by your rules.

  195. Kevin–

    For many of us, our religious convictions are our most prized possession–bar none–more precious in some ways than even our families. It is only natural to “kick and scream” a bit when someone questions them. I understand that perfectly well. Ofttimes, I’d love to throttle me a Catholic or two for what they say on here. If we are correct, then some of what they spew is out-and-out spitting in the very face of Christ. It’s tough to take.

    On the other hand, if they are correct, we are guilty of tremendous disrespect toward the Bride of Christ, his church. To us, the Bride of Christ is a spotless virgin, who separates herself from the world in terms of her identity (though, at the same time, she tenderly nurses people to health within the world). To them, the Bride is fully immersed in the world, even for worship.

    Of course, many of those who post here seem to imply that there is a remnant within a remnant which is really the church. Those who faithfully adhere to all the points of the Catechism are few and far between, one could even say “scant.” Many, many–if not most–others have effectively excommunicated themselves (whether or not they still partake). I actually have some affection for this minuscule remainder of a once mighty church. We have much in common, and there is a connection there. They truly love their “Jesus” and center their lives around him. But is he the same Jesus that you and I love and serve? Sometimes I think “yes”; often I think that it couldn’t possible be. The depth of grace, the ferocity of love…is just not there.

    After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

    The Jesus I have come to know is so indescribably good that I could never even think to seek after another. I can only catch the briefest glimpses of him in Catholic churches. They are missing out. May God have mercy on them…and show them the way back.

  196. Eric,

    Through the ages, many Popes have been rebuked. They have always accepted the rebuke humbly and with grace. St. Peter was simply the first. Even so, they remain God’s appointed Shepherd over the Church.

  197. Eric

    I realize that many Protestants consider St. Paul the founder of Christianity. St. Paul would rebuke them strongly. He never placed himself above Christ. It jst goes to show how the Protestants. have twisted the Word of God.

  198. Kevin,

    St.Peter tried to change the Gospel? Tell me, who said :

    1. I am all things to all people that perchance I might save some

    2. Do not eat meat before a brother who is weak in faith or you will sin against your brother.

    Also, who circumcised St. Timothy because of pressure from the circumcised?

    St. Peter didn’t do anything that St. Paul hadn’t also done.

  199. Eric, I really appreciate that post and the wisdom God has given you thru His Spirit, and His word. You have really helped me to be a more patient person here, for which I am grateful. I have learned much from the friendly exchange we have here. There are certainly true believers in the RC, and only God knows who belongs to Him. Although I would venture to say, as Sproul says, to be a true follower and stay in that communion is hard for me to reconcile. The scripture says when one knows Christ he will want to shout it from the mountain top. I have found Catholics reluctant to want to tell you what they really believe. What I have found is when I tried to lift the lid off to see what was inside all Hell broke loose. Almost like with mormons. My catholic friend who’s son is the point guard at BYU once told me that in his opinion Mormonism is a copy in many ways of Roman Catholicism. The more I thought about it, I agreed. The ritual and mysticism. Based on ones own works in some way. Reducing Christ to something less than he is. And again not in the same way. But, the mass is troubling because it minimizes the perfection and finality and sufficiency of our Lord’s sacrifice. To re break the body of Christ on an altar again at the behest of a man is no small thing. The question I always ask Catholics is, Do they believe their church teaching that doing the Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation. I asked my friend Debbie 30 times and she would never answer me. You know why? Because that is where the rubber meets the road, right. If they say yes, then they admit it is work in some way that gets one to heaven. Eric, I know you seem to be more benevolent toward the RC than I. When i look at Paul, the one thing that could never be compromised was the Gospel. Rome lost any claim to being a true church when they teach a different Gospel. For me, Paul is describing the Roman Gospel in Galatians 1:9. It could be no other. I see it a little different, maybe, form you. All the Catholics on this site fervently defend sanctification as being necessary in justification. They fervently defend the mass as a sacrifice. They fervently quote consistently all the commandment passage and warning passages. In fact I would say they fervently defend all Catholic teaching. I would say that most of the catholics that I thought might be saved are the ones furthest from it. they are deceptive and hide it very well. But when you shake the glass it shouldn’t surprise us what comes out. You always have to keep listening as JC Ryle said, after listening to what he considered was a great bible centered message by a Priest one time. At the end, it subtly came out “Faith formed in love” IOW sanctification. It sounds pretty. How could anyone ever deny that as the entrance way into heaven? Right

  200. Eric, Oh my gosh, that posting to DeMaria regarding Paul might be the best one i’ve ever read.

  201. Kevin

    Do you believe that St.Paul is the founder of Christianity?

  202. DeMaria, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. I believe God is the founder of Christianity.

  203. DeMaria, your like my friend Debbie, she wants to subordinate Paul to Peter, and it just isn’t so. Peter said the things Paul taught are hard to understand. God let Paul flesh out justification. But what you and Debbie don’t realize is that the gospel according to Jesus was the same one. And our dear brother John was an Evangelist and presents the most gracious Gospel. “To as many as receive Him, He has given the right to be called Children of God. Just profound. So the next time your going to do mass to pick up some grace, remember the profundity and simplicity of the gospel. There are so many examples of simple faith, that we see a great blinder over your eyes. A lifetime sacramental system of meriting an increase in grace as a way to salvation is not only not in scripture, it is an affront to the simplicity of Faith alone as justifying. Eric gives you guys a little more leeway. But I think that system is a total affront to the Gospel, and I have no problem telling you in love. I personally think the Mass is an abomination to God because of what it stands for. And RC Sproul says if you are a true believer, you have an obligation to leave that communion immediately. Thx

  204. De Maria–

    Would you care to know the number of orthodox, confessional Protestants who believe that Paul was the founder of Christianity?

    Exactly zero.

  205. Kevin

    Is that your way of denying that Jesus is the founder of Christianity? Or are you denying that Jesus is God?

  206. Eric

    You brought it up and sounded quite proud that Protestants consider St. Paul the founder of Christia nity.

  207. Kevin

    Are you saying that the Epistle of St. Peter is in error when it warns us that St. Paul’s Teachings are hard to understand?

  208. De Maria–

    I am so sorry that your parochial school teachers never taught you how to read.

    Do you still live at home with your mother? Get her to read this to you….

    😉

  209. Eric

    If I make comments like that , you and all the Protestants start crying, “foul!” And demand apologies.

    I will point out once again, that it is typical of you to begin to attack the other person when your argument fails.

  210. Eric, even though you keep me laughing in stitches, remember the love you taught me.

  211. DeMaria, No Peter isn’t in error, nor is that a warning, its a simple observation. Look you and Debbie want to make it seem like Paul was the red headed step child to Peter. Say it ain’t so Joe. Although Peter was always 1st Paul is the most prolific Apostolistic writer in the New testament. Peter never considered himself an infallible Pope. He was deeply flawed like the rest of us and Paul had to set him straight. One time a man tried to bow to Peter and Peter said, get up i’m just a man. He certainly wasn’t wearing a 3 foot hat with diamonds allowing people to kiss his ring. Peter and Paul said, Gold and Silver we have none. Just the decadence and wealth in the RC is sickening. DeMaria if you saw the Pope would you kiss his ring? Thx

  212. De Maria–

    You’re screwed on WAY too tight. I was having fun with you. I’ll have to remember not to do that with you. (Your nerve medications and all.)

    It’s just that you’re constantly misreading people’s texts…and BADLY. Plus, you cannot tell (in the slightest little bit, sometimes) when someone is pulling your leg or when they’re being completely facetious. You’ll ask them to quote Scripture for something that was said in fun that they obviously don’t believe.

    It happens to me, too. You’re quite welcome, by the way, for the laugh I gave you back on the fifth. Sleep deprivation will do strange things to one’s mind! (I tried to go back and figure out what I was thinking, but I really have no idea. All I can say is that I identify the Early Church with the Roman Church about as much as I identify the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan with the Crab Nebula in the Constellation Taurus.)

    Life is short. Pick more daisies. Laugh a little bit. 🙂

  213. De Maria–

    As a case in point, I wrote:

    Scholars actually write books musing whether Paul should be considered the “founder of Christianity.”

    Notice that I said absolutely nothing about “Protestant” scholars (let alone confessional Protestant scholars)?

    Now, many of these scholars are indeed mainline “Protestant” (i.e., secular, non-Christian) scholars, but many are also Catholic and Jewish and Agnostic. Names like David Strauss and F.C. Bauer (both German seminary profs though completely secular), Friedrich Nietsche (Atheist), Hyam Maccoby (Jewish), and Karen Armstrong (ex-Catholic).

    More orthodox Protestants, such as David Wenham (who wrote “Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?” in which he answers his own question with “follower of Jesus”) and N.T. Wright (who wrote “What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?” in which he comes to the conclusion that Paul was NOT its founder, that he was fully in sync with the Gospels) have stood opposed to this line of thinking. Wright wrote, in part, to counter A. N. Wilson’s book, “Paul: the Mind of the Apostle.” Wilson was a virulent Atheist at the time he wrote the book though he converted to Christianity about 5 years ago.

    I DO NOT believe Paul was the founder of Christianity. Proudly or otherwise.

    Confessional Protestants DO NOT believe Paul was the founder of Christianity.

    Clear enough?

    Thought so. 🙂

  214. Eric, Oh my gosh! The Ford with the Taurus!

  215. Kevin–

    Mostly happenstance. I meant to come up with a fish–bicycle tandem (Gloria Steinem: A woman needs a husband like a fish needs a bicycle.)

    For some odd reason I came up with the Ford Motor Company (perhaps because Rome strikes me more as a business than a church) and the Great Nebula beneath the Belt of Orion. On a lark, I looked up the Crab Nebula, not realizing what constellation it was in. It did seem perfect then, sharing a name and absolutely nothing else.

    What in heaven’s name is the appeal of Rome to anyone sincerely seeking the Spirit? Baffles the heck out of me!

  216. Kevin

    KEVIN February 8, 2014 at 9:42 am
    DeMaria, No Peter isn’t in error, nor is that a warning, its a simple observation. …

    Then you admit that St. Paul’s epistles are hard to understand. Good.

    As for you and Debbie, you have not responded to her points. All you did was change the subject and make it an issue of her previously knowing her. That’s all you ever do when you have been refuted.

  217. ERIC February 8, 2014 at 10:15 am
    De Maria–
    You’re screwed on WAY too tight. I was having fun with you. I’ll have to remember not to do that with you. (Your nerve medications and all.)….
    Life is short. Pick more daisies. Laugh a little bit. 🙂

    Its the other way around Eric. The reasons I don’t joke with you is because you turn it around and begin to whine and cry and call me rude. Remember when you first said that you needed some sleep and I agreed. You made a civil case out of that. And you’ve been the same since I’ve known you on this board. When you can’t answer an objection, you make sarcastic comments and add a little smiley. When there is a response in kind, you claim you are being attacked.

    You’re too sensitive. You’re a sensitive guy I suppose. So, no, I won’t laugh with you because you will cry. 🙂

  218. Eric,

    Oh, yeah, and your sarcastic ditties belittling God’s omnipotence, they aren’t funny at all. Maybe that’s Protestant humor. But you won’t find Catholics making up songs belittling God’s ability to bring a man to perfection.

    Do a little dance, sing a little song, your silly rhymes belittling God are wrong. 🙂

  219. Eric,

    I don’t know any Catholics who claim that St. Paul is the founder of Christianity. Even if any exist, it is not Catholic Teaching. So they are wrong.

    That’s all there is to that. If you don’t believe that St. Paul is the founder of Christianity, why do you continue to bring it up as though you are defending that idea?

  220. Eric, There is no appeal of Rome to anyone seeking in the Spirit. Eric, can you give me a rundown on Tribalogue?

  221. Debbie, I don’t know if you’ll come back here and read this, but I hope so. I want to tell you I am really sad for all that is happened. I’m hoping our friendship will survive it. I, however don’t regret it. I should have talked with you years ago and in a much more loving way. Please forgive me. I fight for the truth of the Gospel Deb. And it can be most simply understood as we see it first in Genesis, where God kills an animal and clothes Adam and Eve with skins of righteousness before they ever do anything good, he saves them. Then again we see it in Romans 9, where God chooses Jacob without any regard to sin or virtue and before there was ant infused agape in anyone. I know I am fighting the very church you have been taught your whole life to love. But I hope you understand that I’m constrained by God to fight this error in the most loving way, and when I fail, I’m on my knees. Luther said God saved him from a church of saints. As you know I am the prostitute and the tax collector and the woman at the well all combined into one. I must hang on to the Gospel of free grace. K

  222. DeMaria, i will respond to Debbie’s points thru you. John 6 says “the is is the work of my Father, that you believe.”Jesus in John 14:21, 2:3, 5:2, 2 John 6, then in 1 John4:10, 4:19 He says, keep my commandments , not the commandments. we are commanded to love God with all of our heart, and to love our neighbor. But we fail at this badly everyday. Dikaioo could never mean an evaluation of the state of affairs at the end of your life. My friend Debbie has given me the pat Roman answer, that we will be judged by faith formed in Love. But Romans 9 is clear that God chooses before without regard to sin or merit and before anyone is ever infused with love. What did he command us to do. Believe, and participate in the Lord’s supper. And we can throw the ten commandments in there. But we are in no way justified by works of Law, or or the life lived in any way. The righteous shall live by faith. And your sacramental system of merit is an affront to the Gospel of free grace by faith. And the Catholics who are trusting in Christ alone for there salvation have an obligation to come out of that communion. The mass is the most despicable thing i believe because Rome makes it a work of man to get more grace and justice thru the re breaking of our Lord’s body. My friend Debbie says this isn’t why I believe. And I ask myself, If thats not what you believe, then how can you stay and participate in that knowing that is what your church teaches. You condone it by participating in it. Rome teaches that justification is the recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, and Paul taught the complete opposite, it was a declaration about someone intrinsically unqualified.

  223. De Maria–

    I didn’t make up the “little ditty,” Revelation 21:8. It’s been around for quite some time in church-camp and parachurch circles. It’s not really meant to be sacrilegious at all. It’s a PARODY of Baptist turn-or-burn types. Perhaps you don’t believe God has a sense of humor. Poor you. 🙁

  224. De Maria–

    What’s that? You know all kinds of Catholics who believe that Paul founded Christianity? But that’s OK with you because it’s part of Catholic Tradition?

    See, I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info!

  225. ERIC February 9, 2014 at 3:12 pm
    De Maria–
    What’s that? You know all kinds of Catholics who believe that Paul founded Christianity? But that’s OK with you because it’s part of Catholic Tradition?
    See, I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info!

    I guess your mom didn’t teach you to read:

    DE MARIA February 8, 2014 at 9:49 pm
    Eric,
    I don’t know any Catholics who claim that St. Paul is the founder of Christianity. …

  226. ERIC February 9, 2014 at 11:37 am
    De Maria–
    I didn’t make up the “little ditty,” Revelation 21:8. It’s been around for quite some time in church-camp and parachurch circles. It’s not really meant to be sacrilegious at all. It’s a PARODY of Baptist turn-or-burn types. Perhaps you don’t believe God has a sense of humor. Poor you. 🙁

    Your response is just more proof of what I said before. When y0u can’t respond to the arguments, you turn to ad hominem argumentation. Let me know when you’re through with your petty insults.

  227. De Maria–

    I went way “over the top” to see if you could tell when someone is writing “tongue in cheek.”

    The verdict is in: you can’t.

    By the way, your disliking my “ditty” hardly qualifies as an “argument,” and “poor you” certainly does not qualify as an “ad hominem.”

    You have a serious anger problem. I’d get that taken care of if I were you. It’s holding up your progress towards perfection!

  228. KEVIN February 9, 2014 at 9:32 am
    DeMaria, i will respond to Debbie’s points thru you.

    Ok.

    KEVIN February 9, 2014 at 9:13 am
    …. I fight for the truth of the Gospel Deb.

    No. You fight for the errors of Protestantism. It is a gospel of men far from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    And it can be most simply understood as we see it first in Genesis, where God kills an animal and clothes Adam and Eve with skins of righteousness before they ever do anything good, he saves them.

    If that were salvation, their children would not have been born with original sin.

    Then again we see it in Romans 9, where God chooses Jacob without any regard to sin or virtue and before there was ant infused agape in anyone.

    Your corrupt religion reads into this that God deliberately sends certain people to hell without recourse. But Scripture says:
    1 Timothy 2:4
    Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

    I know I am fighting the very church you have been taught your whole life to love. But I hope you understand that I’m constrained by God to fight this error in the most loving way, and when I fail, I’m on my knees. Luther said God saved him from a church of saints. As you know I am the prostitute and the tax collector and the woman at the well all combined into one. I must hang on to the Gospel of free grace. K

    Again, your corrupt religion tells you to hang on to your sins. But Scripture says:
    2 Timothy 2:20-22
    King James Version (KJV)
    20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
    21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.
    22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

    John 6 says “the is is the work of my Father, that you believe.”

    Exactly! And believing, we obey:
    Romans 10:16
    But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

    Jesus in John 14:21, 2:3, 5:2, 2 John 6, then in 1 John4:10, 4:19 He says, keep my commandments , not the commandments.

    Yes, the Commandments. Is Jesus God or not?
    1 John 5:2
    By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

    we are commanded to love God with all of our heart, and to love our neighbor. But we fail at this badly everyday.

    So, you give up?
    1 Timothy 6:11-13
    King James Version (KJV)
    11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
    12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
    13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

    Did you think that being a Christian was easy:

    Matthew 11:12
    And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

    Dikaioo could never mean an evaluation of the state of affairs at the end of your life.

    Says you.

    Psalm 7:11
    God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

    My friend Debbie has given me the pat Roman answer, that we will be judged by faith formed in Love. But Romans 9 is clear that God chooses before without regard to sin or merit and before anyone is ever infused with love.

    You have read into Romans 9, what you want to get out of it. God called Jacob. But He also called Esau. Jacob answered the call. Esau rejected the call. That is why, later, God hated Esau. Because Esau sold his calling and election for a bowl of soup.

    What did he command us to do. Believe, and participate in the Lord’s supper. And we can throw the ten commandments in there. But we are in no way justified by works of Law,

    Those who keep the Commandments are justified by God. The Commandments don’t justify. God justifies. And if you don’t keep the Commandments, you will not be just before God.

    or or the life lived in any way.

    That is what the ministers of Satan want you to believe:
    2 Corinthians 5:9-11
    King James Version (KJV)
    9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
    10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
    11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

    The righteous shall live by faith.

    Yeah. Not the snow covered dung hills. Those whom God finds righteous will be justified by God and washed of all their sins:
    Romans 1:16-18
    King James Version (KJV)
    16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
    17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    And your sacramental system of merit is an affront to the Gospel of free grace by faith.

    Your Gospel of free grace is an affront to God’s Sacramental System. God does not whitewash the soul. Pretending to be righteous is not righteousness. God is not fooled by lip serveice.

    And the Catholics who are trusting in Christ alone for there salvation have an obligation to come out of that communion.

    All Catholics trust in Christ. But Christ does not call us to trust in him alone. But in Him and in those whom He entrusted with the duty of teaching us the Word of God:
    Hebrews 13:17
    King James Version (KJV)
    17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    The mass is the most despicable thing i believe because Rome makes it a work of man to get more grace and justice thru the re breaking of our Lord’s body.

    The Mass is the remembrance of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the Christian Assembly. Those who reject the Mass tread underfoot the Son of God and treat His Blood of the Covenant as an unholy thing.
    Hebrews 10:25-31
    King James Version (KJV)
    25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
    26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
    27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
    28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
    29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
    30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
    31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    My friend Debbie says this isn’t why I believe. And I ask myself, If thats not what you believe, then how can you stay and participate in that knowing that is what your church teaches.

    1. I believe you are lying. Debbie sounds like a knowledgeable Catholic.
    2. You’re not Debbie so don’t put words in her mouth. Make your own arguments.
    3. You’ve twisted my words before. So, I know that it means nothing to you to twist someone else’s.

    You condone it by participating in it.

    We proudly participate in the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We unite ourselves to it and embrace it and proclaim it.

    1 Corinthians 11:26
    For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
    You condone the sins of the Protestants when you promote their false religion.

    Rome teaches that justification is the recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, and Paul taught the complete opposite, it was a declaration about someone intrinsically unqualified.

    St. Paul followed Christ. He isn’t the founder of Christianity. This is what Christ said:
    Matthew 25:31-46
    King James Version (KJV)
    31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
    32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
    33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
    34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
    35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
    36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
    37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
    38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
    39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
    40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
    41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
    42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
    43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
    44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
    45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
    46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    yeah, read it and weep. You aren’t saved by faith alone but by a faith which works in love. A life of sin leads to a loss of salvation.
    Galatians 6:6-8
    King James Version (KJV)
    6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
    7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
    8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

  229. ERIC February 9, 2014 at 10:22 pm
    De Maria–
    I went way “over the top” to see if you ….!

    Really? Don’t do me any favors, please.

    I’m not the issue here. You want to change the subject because you’re at a loss how to respond to the arguments which you’ve confronted.

    That is why you are being surly, insulting and degrading to all the Catholics whose arguments you can’t answer.

    What are you seeking? Applause? I didn’t know this was the comedy blog. This one is about Baptism and Sola Fide. Do you have anything to contribute in that subject?

  230. DeMaria, your a hypocrite. Your always talking about the commandments and you have never apologized to anyone, pride.

  231. KEVIN February 10, 2014 at 3:28 am
    DeMaria, your a hypocrite. Your always talking about the commandments and you have never apologized to anyone, pride.

    It takes one to know one, Kevin.

    1. You are so predictable. You can’t respond to the arguments, so you change the subject. If you were so concerned about behavior, you wouldn’t wouldn’t accuse people of putting their lips in vulgar places nor insult people, as you do on a regular basis, when you can’t overcome their responses.

    2. I simply respond to arguments and make plain your strategies. I’m not the one insulting anyone nor singing blasphemous ditties in response to logical arguments.

  232. De Maria–

    I’m not ducking your arguments. When and if you ever make a cogent argument, I will make reply. Pretty much all you do is make fideistic, dogmatic assertions and then “back them up” with Scripture passages painfully yanked out of context. I’d be a little more gentle, but you’re just plain nasty so much of the time that I don’t feel sorry for you.

    Clean up your act!

  233. DeMaria, i apologize all the time. Im sorry, but don’t be so sensitive.

  234. De Maria–

    Sorry if I was harsh. I’m trying to understand you, and I just don’t.

    I hope your week is going well.

  235. ERIC February 10, 2014 at 7:21 am
    De Maria–
    I’m not ducking your arguments. When and if you ever make a cogent argument, I will make reply. Pretty much all you do is make fideistic, dogmatic assertions and then “back them up” with Scripture passages painfully yanked out of context. I’d be a little more gentle, but you’re just plain nasty so much of the time that I don’t feel sorry for you.
    Clean up your act!

    ERIC February 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm
    De Maria–
    Sorry if I was harsh. I’m trying to understand you, and I just don’t.
    I hope your week is going well.

    I’m doing fine. Thanks for the last thought.

    Clean up my act? My act is clean Eric. I don’t think you’re accustomed to apologetical arguments. I’ve been doing this for approximately twenty years. I’m accustomed to Protestants disagreeing with me. Most Protestants are not accustomed to Catholics who use the Bible against them.

    The Biblcal context which I use is the original context of the Scripture. When you come to grips with the fact that the Church wrote the New Testament based upon the TRADITIONS of Jesus Christ, you will understand that Protestants set aside that which Jesus taught and search the Scriptures in DISCOVERY mode. You and Kevin search the Scriptures trying to make it say what your religions teach.

    Catholics don’t. We know what the Scriptures say because the Scriptures are a reflection of the Traditions which the Church Teaches. The New Testament was the very first infallible writing of the Catholic Church.

    Sincerely,

    De Maria

  236. KEVIN February 10, 2014 at 7:38 am
    DeMaria, i apologize all the time. Im sorry, but don’t be so sensitive.

    Apology accepted.

    Sensitive? About what? I’m not the one who got upset and started insulting people.

    Now that you’ve apologized, are you going to respond to the arguments?

  237. De Maria–

    You said:

    “You and Kevin search the Scriptures trying to make it say what your religions teach.”

    Bryan Cross and “Called to Communion” say just the opposite: We individual Protestants search the world, looking for the right denomination to fit our interpretation of the Scriptures.

  238. Eric,

    That’s not the opposite Eric. That’s a different version of the same thing. In other words, we both, BC and I, are saying that you are living according to your presuppositions. Not according to a true understanding of Scripture.

  239. De Maria–

    Besides that, De Maria, to exactly WHICH “religion” am I trying to make Scripture conform?

    My soteriology is basically Reformed with some Lutheran elements thrown in. I’m a credo-baptist who thinks the church shouldn’t take a hard-and-fast take on mode or timing. I’m pretty much Anglican in terms of liturgy. My ecclesiology is Presbyterian mixed with some elements of Episcopalianism. I go back and forth between historical premil and amillenialism. I have a fairly high stance on Sacramentalism. I’m what is called a critical Evangelical: I accept both inerrancy and the results of higher criticism which are compatible with that. I believe that neither Science nor the Bible should be compromised. Genesis plainly teaches that God created the world in six literal days a mere few thousand years ago. Science holds that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years ago. I don’t fudge either one. I hold them in tension until we can figure it out. I am neither a cessationist nor particularly taken in by the validity of much of the use of so-called charismatic gifts. I am a die-hard Pietist who nevertheless understands many of the concerns of the Old School. I am open to the perpetual virginity of Mary, to some theory of immaculacy (though probably not conception), and to the possible canonicity of a few of the deuterocanonical books.

    So tell me again, De Maria, to exactly WHICH “religion” am I trying to make Scripture conform?

  240. De Maria–

    Oh, really? Because I HAVE no presuppositions other than the truth of Scripture (none that I’m not willing to ditch that is). Tell me what in Catholic dogma YOU are willing to ditch if the truth comes hitting you right in the face?

    You conform to Catholic Tradition without deviance. In other words, there is exactly ZERO possibility that you can be objective. You’re absolutely useless when it comes to ecumenical dialogue because you’re completely locked down. You’re not even POTENTIALLY open to the voice of the Holy Spirit (not that you’d know Who that was anyway).

  241. ERIC February 12, 2014 at 6:27 am
    De Maria–
    Besides that, De Maria, to exactly WHICH “religion” am I trying to make Scripture conform?….So tell me again, De Maria, to exactly WHICH “religion” am I trying to make Scripture conform?

    To the religion which you have made up. Read the confusion which you have just described as your religion:

    My soteriology is basically Reformed with some Lutheran elements thrown in. I’m a credo-baptist who thinks the church shouldn’t take a hard-and-fast take on mode or timing. I’m pretty much Anglican in terms of liturgy. My ecclesiology is Presbyterian mixed with some elements of Episcopalianism. I go back and forth between historical premil and amillenialism. I have a fairly high stance on Sacramentalism. I’m what is called a critical Evangelical: I accept both inerrancy and the results of higher criticism which are compatible with that. I believe that neither Science nor the Bible should be compromised. Genesis plainly teaches that God created the world in six literal days a mere few thousand years ago. Science holds that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years ago. I don’t fudge either one. I hold them in tension until we can figure it out. I am neither a cessationist nor particularly taken in by the validity of much of the use of so-called charismatic gifts. I am a die-hard Pietist who nevertheless understands many of the concerns of the Old School. I am open to the perpetual virginity of Mary, to some theory of immaculacy (though probably not conception), and to the possible canonicity of a few of the deuterocanonical books.

    Have you ever read in Scripture:
    2 Timothy 4:3
    King James Version (KJV)
    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    ERIC February 12, 2014 at 6:42 am
    De Maria–
    Oh, really? Because I HAVE no presuppositions other than the truth of Scripture (none that I’m not willing to ditch that is). Tell me what in Catholic dogma YOU are willing to ditch if the truth comes hitting you right in the face?

    The Catholic Church teaches the fullness of Truth. Here’s a truth of Scripture which you have ditched:
    Ephesians 3:10
    King James Version (KJV)
    10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

    You don’t believe that any Church teaches the Wisdom of God infallibly. Therefore you cling to your presuppositions, putting the fables of men above the Word of God.

    You conform to Catholic Tradition without deviance. In other words, there is exactly ZERO possibility that you can be objective. You’re absolutely useless when it comes to ecumenical dialogue because you’re completely locked down. You’re not even POTENTIALLY open to the voice of the Holy Spirit (not that you’d know Who that was anyway).

    It is true. I will not deviate from the Teachings of Jesus Christ:
    1 Thessalonians 2:13
    King James Version (KJV)
    13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    1 Timothy 4:15-16
    King James Version (KJV)
    15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

    You go right ahead and deviate all you want. I will remain firm:
    Matthew 7:24-25
    King James Version (KJV)
    24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

  242. De Maria–

    I look at your version of “sound doctrine” and then I look at Scripture, and I see no match.

    “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

    “Here I stand. I can do no other.”

    Hey, man, persuade me. I’m wide open! All that’s standing in the way is your failure to be convincing.

  243. DeMaria, Eric is a thinker ok. Here is the religion he belongs to, pure and undefiled religion of Faith in Jesu Christ alone for his Salvation. Bryan Cross has got alot of room to talk, he’s been a chemist, and been thru every Protestant denomination in the yellow pages only to end up in Babylon. John MacArthur always says if you want to know what men struggle with, listen to what they talk about all the time. The reason BCross makes that statement is he’s taken a little ride down the church Merry go Round himself. There are only 2 churches DeMaria. Te real one, those who trust in Christ alone, and the false one, those who don’t. Everything else we talk about is window dressing, which I enjoy and learn much.

  244. Kevin,

    If I was of that mindset, I can think of many things to do that would be more fruitful (2 Peter 1) than spending time on a Catholic forum making fun of Catholics and condemning them to hell. If I was in your shoes, I would know that there is not ripe fruit here for conversions into your protestant church. Wisdom would tell me that I need to find other fields wherein there is ripe fruit for you understanding of the gospel. It is sad that those who profess Christ should speak in such a way, but it is a reality, a reality merited by the schism of the Protestants in the 16th Century. I am sure you are happy to be in their lineage. But even they would, out of my charitable benefit of the doubt, retire from such a place as this to work on their own souls and the souls of those who have “ears to hear” your gospel message.

  245. Erick, Im not sure why you are dying this to me. I have been respectful. ?

  246. Erick, Are you asking me to leave? Im not sure why you are saying this to me? I have been respectful to you. I thought we have had good discussions. Why do you bring this up out of the Blue? Are all your motives pure for being here?

  247. Kevin,

    You’ve not been disrespectful. I’m actually hoping to drive out of you that you truly have an interest in learning the Catholic faith:) instead of just being here to make fun of us.

  248. Erick, I have learned so much here and from you. My purpose isn’t to make fun of anyone, I’m sorry.

  249. Kevin,

    I don’t think you’ve made fun of me. I was just trying to get you to admit that there was something fruitful from your time here, precisely because your time is not here just to make fun. These are serious matters. Each day when we are done with our time here we go in to prayer with our Lord, and it is as if we are praying to two difference God’s. The effort to forge unity is a very serious matter, and should be taken seriously.

    In the case of strong protestants, such as yourself, it can only be done topic by topic. For even if you were to grant some truth to the Catholic understanding of justification, we’d then have to deal with the Papacy. And then after that, prayer for the dead. And then after that, the Virgin mother of God. And then after that, the Eucharist, etc,etc,etc. I try my best to share with you the very information which led the way for me, someone who is not a theological liberal, to enter the fold of the Catholic Church, in hopes that you can see how I had your presuppositions (which I’ve shown) and how I was able to take those presuppositions to the text of Scripture and have them reformed.

  250. Erick–

    It does make me stop and wonder why someone who describes himself as NOT a theological liberal would end up joining what is, for all intents and purposes, a liberal branch of Christendom.

  251. Eric,

    I am assuming you would say this because of Vatican II? Otherwise, I really don’t know a more conservative branch of Christiantity out there. I mean, what other denomination condemns and excommunicates all uses of birth control? What other denomination excommunicates the remarried (besides anabaptists)? What other denomination has had a long standing history of excluding all other people’s besides those externally united to the Catholic Church? (Of course, through reflection and development, we know that one can reach God’s mercy in invincible ignorance, given they do not fit the description of Romans 1,but truly seek God). What other denomination out there condemns en vitro? I mean i can go on and on.

  252. Erick, What branches leader would say salvation is available to all who live a good life and the kiss the Koran?

  253. Kevin,

    1) Salvation is available to all mankind, for God wills that all man may be saved

    2) The Catholic Church has condemned the view which says that we are saved by merely living a good life

    3) And I’ve never heard one Catholic doctrine which says you get saved by kissing the koran.

  254. Erick,, you being astute must know all of Pope JP’s expansion of salvation to muslims and all those who live a good life. A pelagic expansion like we haven’t seen in History? And also he committed the whole church into the hands of Mary? What do you think about this Erick, this was your leader? thx

  255. Erick–

    I’m not sure what criteria modern Catholics go by to delineate liberal from conservative theology. In Protestant circles, this is ascertained principally through the particular denomination’s stance towards the authority of Scripture: in other words, the embrace of inerrancy/infallibility and the rejection of much (or in some circles, all) of higher criticism.

    Before V2 (and the victory of ressourcement/Nouvelle Theologie), Catholicism had an anti-modernist stance (and oaths to match). From at least the papacies of Pius IX until Pius XII, modern biblical hermeneutics was a recognized threat. Now, magisterial Rome has swallowed modernism whole hog: 1. on issues involving Science (Cardinal Schoenborn of Austria was castigated by the Vatican for insisting on a view of Evolution that included a continuing Providential involvement: a guided Evolution, as it were), 2. on political issues involving economics, they take a strongly socialistic viewpoint (which is part of the reason Jason–a staunch Europhile–took to Catholicism, I think), and on political issues involving diplomacy and the military, they take a strongly Idealistic (liberal) approach (almost pacifistic, in fact).

    They’re called “conservative” almost entirely on their their stands on sexual and gender issues. No women’s ordination, no divorce, no birth control, no abortion, no same-sex marriage. Other social issues, such as gun control or capital punishment, find them clearly on the liberal side.

    The fact that they are still conservative on sexual issues rests almost entirely on the remaining emphasis on Sacred Tradition. One sees the exact same phenomenon in Mormonism, which–although it has incorporated much of higher criticism into their biblical hermeneutics–still clings to texts of presidential prophecy (Doctrines and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, etc.) which require them to be extremely family oriented and patriotic.

    As society becomes more and more pink, we may actually see the Catholics waver on homosexuality. Emergent “Evangelicals” have already succumbed. Nobody wants to be completely on the “wrong side of history.” I do believe divorce, birth control, abortion, and even women’s ordination are safe for the moment.

    The aforementioned Schoenborn (a conservative, right?) has approved of an openly gay man serving on a parish council and spoken of the virtues of stable same-sex relationships (and lobbied for civil rights protecting them).

    Yes, there is a remnant within a remnant of traditionalists who still hold to a fair amount of Scriptural authority. But your number is growing fewer and fewer (and is not really represented within the hierarchy). As in Anglicanism, I think you may well see a backlash against this prevailing modernism in the Third World: Africa and Asia, especially, along with parts of Latin America.

    Still, all in all, yours is a thoroughly liberal denomination.

  256. Eric,

    You have hit the nail square on the head as far as RC liberalism. I would add that perhaps we should not be too confident about Rome’s positions on sexual-marital issues other than homosexuality remaining constant. I’m sure you know of the survey being conducted right now by the Vatican on how to minister to the divorced, the remarried, and other groups. No one knows where this survey will go, especially once the special group that Francis is calling convenes, but I have no illusions that Rome will remain hard on this forever. It already ignores the vast liberalism in the U.S. church.

    The essential soteriological universalism that Rome now embraces is a key example of the church’s thoroughgoing universalism. One doesn’t need to know Christ to be saved, and basically it is assumed that all mankind seeks God except for the REALLY, REALLY bad people. How much longer even they will be cut off from heaven is anyone’s guess.

  257. That is, thoroughgoing liberalism.

  258. Erick–

    By the way, there are actually quite a few Evangelicals who have taken a serious look at the validity of contraception and have eschewed its use. My wife and I have never used birth control and have strongly encouraged others not to. (We did practice NFP for quite a while, but mostly with a view of figuring out how to get pregnant!) Many practices (the Pill, the IUD, etc.) are abortifacient, and we have dutifully informed friends and acquaintances of the fact (often without result, unfortunately: many Evangelical women, we have found, prioritize their convenience over ethics). We have also taken a firm stance against IVF, which has not made us particularly popular with some of our infertile friends.

Leave a Comment

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

wordpress visitor