Doing, Being, and the Function of Faith

Posted by on July 13, 2014 in Baptism, Catholicism, Ecclesiology, Featured, Gospel, Law, Presbyterianism, Protestantism, Reformed Theology, Sacraments, Sola Fide | 718 comments

This is going to sound very strange, but what if I told you that Catholics believe in Justification by faith alone while (Reformed) Protestants are actually the ones who believe in Justification by works? A statement that outrageous surely requires an explanation, so that’s what I want to provide. This post won’t be so much about exegesis as it is about simply helping people to understand where each side is coming from.

In the Protestant view, for man to enter Heaven he needs to have kept God’s Law perfectly. This means Salvation for the Protestant is purely based upon human “works,” the catch is that since sin has tainted all we do, it’s impossible for man to keep God’s Law perfectly. This is why Protestants say we need Jesus to keep God’s Law perfectly for us, and impute this “work” to us as if we did all this “work” ourselves. Hence why Protestants say our only hope to stand before God and be seen as “righteous” (i.e. a perfect keeper of the Law) is to trust in “Christ’s finished work” alone. So what does any of this have to do with faith alone? Protestants say the way we ‘receive’ this “work” that Christ did is through ‘the empty hand of faith,’ which reaches out and lays hold of and applies that work to our account.

In the Catholic view, for man to enter Heaven requires that he be in communion with God before he passes from this life. For Catholics, Salvation is not so much about ‘doing’ as it is about ‘being’. Communion with God is principally characterized by being “in a state of grace,” that means us possessing the divine gifts of faith, hope, and charity, as well as the Indwelling of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in our souls. In this view, faith implies the possession of all these other divine gifts for the Catholic. And the means by which a person first acquires all these is through “the washing of regeneration,” also known as Baptism.

Though this is a brief description of each side, I believe each summary to be true to the Reformed and Catholic positions. The views really are quite different, and hopefully it is clear the issue isn’t simply a matter of “faith versus works,” which never really was the issue. Given this overview, I hope it provides the casual reader with a ‘lens’ by which they can properly study and properly dialogue when it comes to the essence of Catholic-Protestant disagreements.

Knowing where each side is coming from can help prevent a lot of misunderstanding and wasted time. For example, a Catholic should be able to see why Baptism doesn’t save in the Protestant view, because it makes little sense to say Baptism is what passes on to us the “work” Christ did for us. On the flip side, a Protestant should be able to see the role that Baptism plays in the Catholic view, not as one of many “works” that must be done to get a perfect score on our Law keeping test, but as a door by which we enter into God’s family.

These two ‘world views’ should be kept in mind especially when reading Paul, because it will help explain why Protestants and Catholics have their own ‘favorite verses’ they like to quote. When a Protestant quotes a Pauline text which says we are saved by faith not by works, this is understood very differently when a Catholic reads it. The Protestant sees Paul as teaching that the “works” do in fact save us, but that we need Christ to keep it for us, and apply that “work” to us by faith. The Catholic sees Paul as teaching that one does not enter into communion through the Mosaic Law, but rather he enters (and stays) in communion with God by possessing the divine (not human) gifts, stated simply as ‘having faith’.

718 Comments

  1. Layne, said ” ya we call that sanctification. We learn that from the Holy Spirit who is sanctifying us.” We’ll thats not completely true is it. Obviously the Holy Spirit is sanctifying us and making us Holy. But your sanctification is further justification as you merit increase of justice and grace by your works to a FINAL justification. Unfortunately justification on the installment plan by meriting increase is, Umm, nowhere in scripture. Justification is ALWAYS past tense. Romans 5:1 HAVING BEEN justified by faith. Romans 5: 9-10 HAVING BEEN justified and HAVING BEEN reconciled by his blood. In the RC Christ isn’t Lord and Savior because you won’t let him off the cross. Layne He is risen!

  2. Trebor asks ” If works have nothing to do with salvation” I said works aren’t meritorious in salvation. ” How do you know you are one of these true believers with saving faith.” 1 John 5:13 ” these things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” Thats how. And Paul says nothing can separate us from the love of God Romans 8:39. ” How do you explain baptized professing Protestants who then reject faith?” Baptism is a sign of the promise, but it means nothing without faith. We are regenerated and saved by faith, hearing the word of God by the work of the Spirit. Romans 5:17, 1 Peter1:23, James 1:18. and not by baptism. “communion is beneficial for the forgiveness of sins” Maybe you don’t know this but the Roman Catholic Mass is another true sacrifice according to Trent and a work on the part of the believer to propitiate his sin and merit increase of justice and grace. Hebrews 10:14 says by one sacrifice once He perfected for all time those for whom He died. verse 18 says there are no more sacrifices for sin. ” These Reformers sure didn’t fit your narrative were they saved?” My narrative? I’m a Calvinist and a Reformed Christian who believes in JBFA.

  3. Kevin,

    Eureka! I am sitting here listening to Matt Slick debate Tim Kernan on Baptism.

    Matt Slick misquoted Philippians 3:9 to prove imputation and I thought of you. The quote actually says, “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law…”. He left off “that comes from the Law” part.

    Kernan then goes on to use Titus 3:9 but just the opposite of you. He uses it to prove Baptism is not a work. The text basically says, ” He saved us not by works but by Baptism…”. Matt didn’t try to refute him on this.

    It gets worse or better depending on one’s perspective. Slick denies the necessity of love and even “stopping sinning” as works of the Law. Kernan pins him down on this and he looks silly although he is rude and insulting to Kernan.

    Give a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iOxcIkOPH0

  4. Kevin,
    You are getting frustrated with Layne. He just won’t listen! In desperation you write,

    “. As Augustine said and I have told you ten times good works ( sanctification) follows justification. I think you might be confused because Catholic justification includes sanctification, but Paul makes this distinction between justification and sanctification …”

    Augustine “confused” sanctification with Justifaction too, didn’t he? And Paul seems to have said, ‘ You have been, washed, sanctified and justified”. This means we have been made holy in Baptism by an infusion of grace and declared such.
    And for the 10th time, MERITORIOUS works follow justification. Pagans do good works without ever knowing Christ. Jesus and Paul said so.

  5. Kevin,

    You dismissed the perspicuous words of the Bible that say Elizabeth and Zachary kept all the Law perfectly. No point in pointing out that Simeon, Joseph were also just or holy men too. And Abel, Noah and Lot were holy before the Law was ever given.

    I sent a long post to you a day or two ago showing that grace is not just “unmerited favor”. How did the Galatians fall from unmerited favor? Why did God reward the humble with grace? Because they merited it by their humility.

    I have presented the Rich Young Ruler as an example of our ability to keep the 10 Commandments but you said Jesus showed him up for being a hypocrite who never had really kept the Commandments.

    Why don’t we shut this argument down right now by looking at the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Just as in the case of the Rich Young Man, Jesus was asked how we get saved. In both cases He said to keep the Commandments.

    Jesus summed up the Law with the Great Shema and added love for neighbor. He did not say we couldn’t keep this Law as you so adamantly insist.

    He then told the story of the heretical, unbelieving Samaritan who did a charitable work and then said, ” Go and do likewise” to be saved. Not a word about the empty hand of faith trusting in His imputed keeping the Law in our stead being applied to our accounts in a court room.

    Kevin, this discussion is over.

  6. Kevin–is it just me, or have you butchered my last post beyond what I could have ever envisaged possible?

    If this is a sign of things to come, I have little interest in continuing to engage with you.

    But perhaps I’ll reply (later on–it’s very late here), to set the record straight.

  7. +JMJ+

    Jim wrote:

    Jesus summed up the Law with the Great Shema and added love for neighbor. He did not say we couldn’t keep this Law as you so adamantly insist.
    .
    He then told the story of the heretical, unbelieving Samaritan who did a charitable work and then said, ” Go and do likewise” to be saved. Not a word about the empty hand of faith trusting in His imputed keeping the Law in our stead being applied to our accounts in a court room.

    ‘Zactly.

    If all Jesus of Nazareth did was to spotlessly keep the precepts of the Law, then he’s still in the grave. Works of Law can’t save, no matter how spotless is one’s record. How much more perspicuous does Paul have to be? 😉

    Fulfilling the Law: saves.

    Spotless Law-Keeping: can’t save.

  8. “Fulfilling the Law: saves.

    Spotless Law-Keeping: can’t save.”

    Yeah!

  9. Jim, Good morning Jim, Philippians 3:9: Paul says being found in Him ( in Christ) not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is thru faith in Christ, the righteousness which come from God. Paul puts all his righteousness in one column and Christ’s in the other. ” The righteousness that comes thru faith is the same in Romans 3:20 ” apart for the Law ” the righteousness of God” Romans 5:17 ” the free gift of righteousness” Romans 1:17 ” For in it ( the gospel) “the righteousness of God is revealed” from FAITH to FAITH, 10:4 ” Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to those who believe.” As you can see faith apprehends the righteousness of Christ 5:19 which justifies us, adopted, heir, and undergirds the rest of our union with God. I am positionally no less righteous today than I was yesterday, not because of my inherent righteous, but because of the passive and active obedience counted to my account. Abraham believed God and was counted righteous, so he couldn’t have done works to achieve that righteousness. For Rome Christ is the beginning of righteousness, not the end of righteousness like 10:4 says. IOW Philippians 3:9 Paul is saying our righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is his and thats why Paul can tell us past tense in 5:1 we have been justified, and 5:9 we have been reconciled and justified thru His blood. Rome substituted JBFA with a sacramental system of achieving God’s favor with His help. But he is no longer on the cross. He is savior and Lord, risen for our justification. He sits in heaven interceding for us. And the church sings the amen about mission accomplished. Again He did not come to make salvation possible, but He redeemed a people for himself. There is only one way on that train. As I said the other day after quoting Romans 4:16, if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by with alone. God bless Jim, In Christ’s love.

  10. Wosbald, Jesus told the tax collector who was beating his breast crying out for mercy saying be merciful to me a sinner that he WENT HOME righteous. Each time Christ heals someone or commends their love He tells them their faith saved them. Of course we are called to love our neighbor and God with all of our heart soul and mind. But we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Law says do these thing and you shall live. The gospel says live and do the things. I’m trusting the gospel. Scripture never says we are justified by faith formed in love. Justification through faith alone GUARANTEES all the other blessings and graces of God, love, sanctification, glorification. Read Romans 8: 28-30, the golden chain of salvation. Those He predestined He called, He justified, He glorified.

  11. Jim July 19, 2014 at 11:43 am

    “Donald,

    I really want to understand why guys like you, converts to Catholicism, never rank on your Protestant friends and family. Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Dave Anders , etc.have no animosity towards Protestants. They seem to love them and speak glowingly of all the good stuff they learned as protestants.

    About 25 years ago I was having breakfast with a priest and a bunch of lay people and I brought up this observation of mine. The table went silent for a minute and then all present unanimously concurred with what I notice about converts.

    Why are you guys so lacking in bitterness and your counterparts so angry?”

    I won’t speak for the others as it is not my place to do so.

    When I came into the Catholic Church I was aware of several things:

    1. We are all made in the image and likeness of God in spite of the fall
    2. We are due all human dignity because of what He did in creating us
    3. He purchased our redemption at immense cost to Himself out of love for us
    4. He forgave the men who were responsible for condemning Him and for killing Him

    I am supposed to imitate Him. I am supposed to do that for the love of God and the love of neighbor. I am supposed to operate out of obedience to Him.

    If He forgave His enemies even as He was dying, what does that require of me? Imitation. I don’t have to feel an emotion, but am required to make an act of will pertaining to the good of those people. I have to want them in heaven, no matter what they did to me or even what they did to Him because that is where He wants them.

  12. Wosbald, Yeah Jesus was a kinder , gentler Moses, with a softer law, right?. How you doing with “fulfilling the Law” ? Why Purgatory? Conflating Law with Gospel is the corruption of faith. We are under a new covenant if you haven’t noticed. Hint, it isn’t gracious law.

  13. +JMJ+

    Those whom he foreknew [Mankind, Man considered in his Nature], he also predestinated [predestinated this Nature] to be made conformable to the image of his Son [by creating Human Nature open to divinization, capable of God], that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. [that the image of the Incarnate Son could be recapitulated in each man’s heart].
    .
    And whom he predestinated [Mankind], them he also called [in the visible, Incarnational Kingdom, shouted from the rooftops in the full daylight]. And whom he called, them he also justified [Human Nature is now justified in the Person of Christ]. And whom he justified, them he also glorified [Man’s Nature, justified, is assumed and glorified in the Risen Christ].
    .
    (Rom 8: 29-30)

    Is dat a golden enuff chain for y’all?

  14. Well, I’ve given it the “old college try”. He has eyes but he cannot see, he listens but does not understand. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Looks like it’s time for me to shake the dust from my sandals and move on.

    I’m leaving him for you guys. I just don’t have the patients.

    Vaya con Dios, Ya’ll.

  15. ” Reformed theology is monergism and says faith is entirely a supernatural gift. Roman Catholicism is synergism, putting salvation finally in the hands of man, and developing a system of rituals that are indistinguishable in the main from magic. Reformed theology says that man since the fall hates God apart from grace, Rome says that men don’t hate God and are callable of pleasing God apart from grace. Modern secularism talks about the inherent good of people and how we all love God. I’ll let you conclude which one is man made!

  16. See, and I don’t even know the difference between “patients” and “patience”.

  17. I want to know the source of this quote, “Rome says that men don’t hate God and are callable of pleasing God apart from grace.”

    Please.

  18. Should read capable of obeying God apart from grace. Please check out kenneths thread on romes view of natural man and his ability to obey

  19. Kevin,

    You said to Wosbald,

    “Yeah Jesus was a kinder , gentler Moses, with a softer law, right?. How you doing with “fulfilling the Law” ?”

    Yes, Jesus is a New Moses. Ever read the Sermon of the Mount? Ever wonder why it is found in Matthew’s Jewish Gospel only?
    Like Moses, He went up on the mountain and delivered His Law. In the center of His sermons is this,

    “and forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

    This is not compatible with an “eye for eye”. Nor is it compatible with a Faith Alone mentality either. It is a new and altogether greater Law.

    All through the Sermon, Jesus exhorts people to be merciful, humble, and chaste.
    He admonishes His followers to be holier than the pharisees who did everything for the praise of men. He doesn’t utter a word that this righteousness will be His alien righteousness imputed to them in a court room. Here was His perfect opportunity to say so if that is what He meant but He didn’t. Rather, Jesus stressed this righteousness must be an interior one of the heart.

    Yes, Jesus was a New Moses with a New law of the heart.

  20. In John 10 Jesus says” but you do not believe because you are not my sheep” My sheep hear my voice.” In the RC, or a synergistic understanding, what ultimately makes the difference is the will of man, not the grace of God. God gives men equal grace and God’s blessings depends a condition we meet, our action. The will of man is what makes us different than unbelievers. What matters is how man uses that grace better than others. But God sent His Son to do what we couldn’t do for ourselves. Faith and repentance are supernatural gifts.

  21. Jim, Romans 3:21 is the greatest ” but now” ever heard. ” But now APART from the law “the righteousness of God has been manifested by the Law and the prophets, even the “righteousness of God” thru faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The gospel is supernatural Jim having come from heaven apart from the law. To confuse law and gospel is at the center of all abuses of Christianity and the corruption of faith. The New covenant was something completely different, not a conflation of two covenants into gracious law. Christ suffered the penalty of our law breaking and gave us eternal life thru faith and now our obedience is “our reasonable service of worship, not a way to merit increase of salvation. Doing the law could never save a man in the OT, they were shadows of the great things to come. And doing the ” sacraments of the new law” can’t save you. They are like the OT sacrifices in that you do them over and over and it doesn’t perfect you. But Hebrews says that by one offering He PERFECTED for all time those who ARE sanctified. Hebrews 9 says He put sin away and 10:18 says there are no more sacrifices for sin. Its finished and Romans says we have been reconciled, justified by faith and His blood, past tense. Its being applied to our life. Sanctification is a work of God. I act out the miracle. God bless Jim.

  22. Hello FAITH,

    I’m Susan, and while you probably don’t need any more voices in this conversation, I would like to chime in if you will allow me. I converted to the Catholic Church just about five months after the host of this website did. While I was in the middle of counsel with my former pastors about my “pull” towards Catholicism, it was mentioned to the congregation during afternoon catechism one Sunday that a notable Presbyterian pastor was about to swim the Tiber. While I believe the mention of this was supposed to deter me, I remember having to consciously conceal a smile. I silently prayed “thank you God!” and continued my investigation and steps towards full communion. His conversion really helped bolster my confidence that I wasn’t insane or deceived to believe that the Catholic Church was the only true church founded by Jesus Christ. I mention all of this because you are using a lot of scripture as proof for the Protestant position but not seeming to understand that every scripture you use is full compatable with Catholicism. There are smart men and women on both sides of the debate who utilize scripture to support their respective theologies. In fact, this awareness is one of the factors that drove me to investigate Catholicism’s claims; that is that every Protestant denomination has differning views about things that they each say is clear from the scriptures. I wondered how that could be. You see, each said that what really mattered was that we all agreed concering “the essentials”, but I couldn’t figure out what the essentials were. Again, I’m not trying to take you away from the other conversations, I just wanted you to be aware that each side is operating within its own paradigm and actually talking past each other rather than making progress.

    Peace,
    Susan

  23. faith July 20, 2014 at 8:40 am

    ” Reformed theology is monergism and says faith is entirely a supernatural gift. Roman Catholicism is synergism, putting salvation finally in the hands of man, and developing a system of rituals that are indistinguishable in the main from magic. Reformed theology says that man since the fall hates God apart from grace, Rome says that men don’t hate God and are callable of pleasing God apart from grace. Modern secularism talks about the inherent good of people and how we all love God. I’ll let you conclude which one is man made!”

    If you are making a charge with “Roman Catholicism is … a system of rituals that are indistinguishable in the main from magic” and “Rome says that men don’t hate God and are callable of pleasing God apart from grace” then you might supply the documentation for these statements.

    Jesus founded a Church before ascending into Heaven. Calvin founded a church about 1600 years later. Their theologies are in conflict.

    Everything good and right within Judaism was fulfilled and found itself being renewed and used by the Church Jesus founded. He brought the old and the new into His Church. The priesthood. The sacrifice. The rituals. The entry into the Church (baptism) as a contrast with circumcision. Jesus as King and Peter as His chamberlain, which is akin to King David and his chamberlain or keeper of the keys. Rather than one temple where the sacrifice is offered, there are temples all over, universally one might say, where the only acceptable Sacrifice is offered and the sons and daughters get the sacrificial Meal of the New Covenant.

    Why? He told us that unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood we would not have life within us. Why are His temples all over? It is out of obedience to our Lord Who told his disciples to take the good news to the ends of the earth.

    There is something else is being used in Calvin’s church. And accordingly you are right that we must conclude which one is man made.

  24. Susan,
    “I mention all of this because you are using a lot of scripture as proof for the Protestant position but not seeming to understand that every scripture you use is full compatable with Catholicism”

    Thank you, thank you, thank you and double thank you!

    Kevin quotes the same verses that are in our Bible and assumes he wins his argument just by quoting them. His quotes about Abraham, Faith, Titus 3:5, are the sames ones we read at home and at Mass to prove our position too.

    I think everyone on the blog( except Kevin) notices this and is amused/irritated by it. Funny thing is, most of what Kevin believes is at loggerheads with other Protestants, not just Catholics. Calvinists make up a small percentage of even the most anti-Catholic brand of Protestants. Dave Hunt and Dan Corner are examples of men who oppose Calvinism with a vengeance. And they really hate the Church.
    No Lutheran would go near Kevin when it comes to the Sacraments. Arminians place Faith in a different position of the order of salvation making it the sources of regeneration, not the result. Most Protestants believe one can lose their salvation by serious sin. The Church of Christ is probably as opposed to Baptists as it is Catholics. Actually,probably the only the tie that binds Protestants together today is a denial of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

  25. Here you go again, this is driving me insane, you have no authority or knowledge of what you are saying, where are you getting this stuff?????

    “In the RC, or a synergistic understanding, what ultimately makes the difference is the will of man, not the grace of God. God gives men equal grace and God’s blessings depends a condition we meet, our action. The will of man is what makes us different than unbelievers. What matters is how man uses that grace better than others.”

    You have it all twisted. You have a shred of light and then you try to explain it with the wrong paradigm, it makes you sound so foolish and troubled. And I can say this because I have known you a long long time. So basically, the more you learn (and you are learning an incredible amount) the more you throw into the cake batter and just keep stirring it up with everything else you have ever heard – no understanding, just a big muddy mess.

    Actually, many things you argue with are Catholic doctrine. One minute you say we believe in magic and the next thing you use to defend your opinion is “But God sent His Son to do what we couldn’t do for ourselves. Faith and repentance are supernatural gifts.”

    Now the good news is that you are throwing it all in the bowl, not in the trash, and I can only pray that the Holy Spirit will begin to refine your logic and enlighten you with foundational truths to see clearly.

    As always, you are a work in progress. I’ve seen you ‘move’ more in your mind in the last year and 1/2 than is most people do in 12 years of schooling. I consider this a good thing and trust that our Lord is really working in your soul.

    Jim’s response at 10:20 am is beautiful and easy to read. Instead of acknowledging it you change subjects. This is the tactic of a bully pure and simple = the boy in the neighborhood that can’t get along, so keeps punching.

  26. What is Kenneth’s blog?

    I want to read it so I can understand where you are coming from, but my gut is that he is trying to speak about the natural law.

  27. Donald,

    You beat me to the punch on addressing Kevin’s absurd charge of magic. ( I wonder how many Lutherans he has called wizards lately? ).

    You know, over on Nick’s catholic Blog I have been going round with a guy who makes the same goofy claim that the priest or whoever administers the Sacrament, like magicians, “binds God to to do his bidding”. As strict monergists who believe God to be no more that a ventriloquist chatting with his puppets, they don’t understand how God could want us to be, in the words of St. Paul, co-workers with Him. They don’t realized that Jesus, not Simon Magus, set up the sacraments.

    Kevin should know this as he lurkered during the two week long discussion we had on contraception. In those two weeks of discussing NFP and “Pro-Creation”, it came out that God has likewise bound Himself to create ex nihilo, a new rational soul every time a man’s sperm penetrates a woman’s egg. Even in the case of rape, adultery, fornication or incest, when sperm and egg mix, God, working with the nature He made, acts.

    God and man work in synergism to bring into being new spiritual persons made for God’s glory. To date, Kevin has not accused men and women of donning top hat and wand and saying “abracadabra” when they embrace.

    Maybe that inanity is yet to come. Nothing surprises me about Kevin.

  28. Debbie,
    Forgive Kevin. This Magick nonsense is what he laps up while sitting at the feet of his master Tim K. More to be pitied than censured. Consider the source and let it go.

  29. Kevin,

    ” Rome substituted JBFA with a sacramental system…”.

    Could you tell us when this switcheroo took place? Why do we not see in any history book an outcry from the little people at this slight of hand?

    One day folks were all believing in JBFA and the next day they were taking part in shamanistic rituals and magick? WOW! I gotta know more. Tell us (without copy and pasting from “you know where”) the dates, names, places and villains who did this.

    The Mormons say the Pope hoodwinked the world while the Apostle were still alive. When does Ti, er,…um, when do you say he did it?

    We gotta get the word out Kevin. Put it down on a book. Folks will give it “a fair read” ( wink ). We can topple the whole Romish hoax if we act now!

    God bless you Kevin.

  30. helo

  31. Hi Susan, thanks for sharing your story, You can approach me and say anything you want to me anytime. ” the are smart men and women on both sides that utilize scripture to support their theology” I agree. ” I converted to RC about 5 months ago following the host here” Ok, I ope you are aware of the spiritual danger of that. ” I prayed thank you God and continued my investigation and steps to full communion. Susan let me ask you something, If by faith alone in Christ alone we are forgiven, justified, adopted,reconciled, redeemed by His blood, an heir with an inheritance that can never fade away, seated in heaven with Christ where His altar, Priesthood , and sacrifice are, the veil ripped away, all barriers removed, with all things pertain to life and Godliness, koininia with our savior as temples of the Holy spirit, peace and the assurance of salvation, sealed in the Spirit, why would you ever trade that for an earthly alar, sacrifice, and Priesthood, where He is not Lord and Savior, but still on the cross an eternal victim, and for a sacramental system of meriting increases of your salvation based on your works ( fuller communion). The writer called the need for an earthly altar, sacrifice, and priesthood shrinking back in one’s faith. Which of these seems to be the fullest communion to you? Rome is right by saying unity is important, but its wrong if it thinks that unity means anything with a false gospel. Eric, Robert, Eric W, and I all attend different denominations, but we all believe in JBFA. Susan, you were running so well, what happened? Blessed are those who do not see yet believe. Our arms are always open. God bless

  32. Donald said ” Jesus founded a church before he ascended into heaven, Calvin founded a church about 1600 years later.” Your axiom of sola ecclesia is showing Donald in your recollection of History. I ask you to take your Roman glasses off for a moment and see the real history. God sent Luther and the Reformers to save the early church and the Apostles from the hair splitting academics who perverted the gospel. Luther was the first to exegete justification in the church, EVER. Erasmus admitted to Luther that Jerome, who knew no Hebrew and little greek, translated the word for justification to make righteous instead of declare righteous.

  33. Jim, said” God working with the nature he made, acts” The gospel isn’t natural Jim, its supernatural come down from heaven.” Not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.”

  34. Susan,

    Kevin said to you that Catholics think ” He is not Lord and Savior, but still on the cross an eternal victim,…”.

    Don’t bother wasting your energy explaining to him that, yes, Christ is an eternal victim as Hebrews and Revelation show.
    But not on the cross. He suffers no more.

    Kevin loves to play games Susan. He has had this explained to him maybe a hundred times. He is jerking your chain.

    As for his, ” Our arms are always open”, don’t be scared. He can’t get you. Don’t have nightmares. Sprinkle Holy Water around your house and it will keep him away.

  35. Faith,

    When the Catholic Church can also read and interpret–and copy, I might add, the same scripture( has for 2000 yrs) that you quote and are able to harmonize it with such things as a socerdotal system, purgatory,prayers to saints and so forth, it wouldn’t be far- fetched (all things being equal)to consider that just maybe the Holy Spirit has always guided this one, holy, catholic and apostolic mystical body of out Lord Jesus Christ. What I’m saying is that there is no scripture that is able to be a proof against Catholicism. And so a Reformer’s critique of Catholic doctrine can only be a Reformed supposition because it cannot be supported except by also assuming that the Reformed view is definately correct. Scriptura alone is not able to take a side. Without the Church’s authoritative interpretation there is just no way to settle disputes.
    To show you what I mean,I could show you from scripture, proofs of all Catholic doctrines and practices, but because you aren’t neutral towards Catholicism you will be filtering it through the Reformed view.

    “Susan, you were running so well, what happened? ” This kind of question is not helpful for fruitful dialogue. Please refrain from personal attacks.

    Susan

  36. I’m very confused. Who is Kevin? My comments are meant for “Faith”.

  37. Jim,

    I don’t have time to spend with someone who is just interested in jerking my chain. I thought “Faith” was a woman. Maybe Kevin or Faith, or whoever, might be interested in learning what Catholicism truly believes.
    Here’s a start:
    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/#body

    I’m outta here!
    Susan

  38. Susan, I have been asked by the hosts here to post under faith for computer reasons i think.. So there is no iteration to jerk you around. Just following orders. But I intend to abide in all that is asked of me. No intention to mislead. My name is Kevin. And Jim has posted my last mane over everything so I have nothing to hide. I agree Susan we both bring our Axiom to our views. Both of us have a fallible judgment based on our axiom. Your axiom is sola ecclesia and mine is sola scriptura. You put your faith in a church and I put mine in the Word. But a church can’t save you Susan, only the Word. And I apologize if with my question about what happened you were offended. i hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

  39. Faith formerly known as Kevin said:

    “Erasmus admitted to Luther that Jerome, who knew no Hebrew and little greek, translated the word for justification to make righteous instead of declare righteous.”

    Wow! This proves with out of doubt that the Holy Spirit was guiding St Jerome’s hand since be was able to translate a language he did not know into Latin. So your problem is with the Holy Spirit’s interpretation!

  40. Susan,

    And so a Reformer’s critique of Catholic doctrine can only be a Reformed supposition because it cannot be supported except by also assuming that the Reformed view is definitely correct.

    And vice versa. A RCs critique of ever-changing RC doctrine can only be a RC supposition because it cannot be supported except by also assuming that the RC view is definitely correct.

  41. Wosbald,

    If all Jesus of Nazareth did was to spotlessly keep the precepts of the Law, then he’s still in the grave.

    And of course, that’s not all Jesus did.

    Works of Law can’t save, no matter how spotless is one’s record. How much more perspicuous does Paul have to be? 😉

    Fulfilling the Law: saves.

    Spotless Law-Keeping: can’t save.

    Ignores everything Paul says about sin and its effect on human beings, and it makes the law into something inherently defective, which is exactly what Paul says it is not. Further, Paul tells the Judaizers in Galatians that if they are going to attempt to be saved by doing the works of the law, they have to keep it perfectly. Perfect keeping of the law is necessary for salvation, we just can’t do it. Again and again and again the NT stresses that Jesus kept the law perfectly.

    The law cannot save sinners. The problem is not the law, it is us, which is why Jesus had to do more than just never sin. He also had to die and rise again.

    But when you are part of a system that says nothing is really wrong with us, this is what you get.

  42. Dear Kevin,

    Of course I will forgive you. And throughout any conversation that I might have with you I also will not be mean spirited or make any ad hominem fallacies. Since we are both humans who desire truth and want God to give us illumination, I’m certain that we should actually be able to communicate with each other in order to find truth together. You and I are not enemies, Kevin. I will write again when I have a few spare minutes.

    God Bless,
    Susan

  43. CK, I direct you to Tim Kauffman’s site out of his mouth. Read his articles on the 7 seals and the 7 trumpets. He documents plethora of translation errors Jerome made with the Vulgate because he didn’t know those languages well at all. And those mistranslations led to some of the major doctrinal errors of the Roman church. Don’t take my word for it. Research it yourself. One of them was the wrong interpretation of who crushed the serpents head in Genesis. Jerome translated it feminine to mean Mary, when it was masculine to mean Christ. Of course the one that affected justification was the one I mention. If you can take your Catholic glasses off and research it, you will see.

  44. Susan, thanks for the kind words. I will look forward to dialogue in the future.

  45. Susan,

    Kevin is not being 100% up front. He said he is posting under the woman’s name of Faith because Jason asked him to. What he failed to mention is that, prior to being requested to call himself Faith, he had already been using that name and another female name , “Veil”, to fly under the blog’s radar. You see, Kevin had been banned for bad behavior for some months.
    So, the Faith business is his idea. He disguised himself as a woman, much like the famous coward of the Titanic who dressed as a woman so as to get a seat on a life boat, to get back on the blog. Like the Ancient Mariner, as a form of poetic justice, me must wander the blog forever, wearing that sissy name around his hairy gorilla neck.
    So, Susan, take heart. God does exist. There is justice in the world and life is good.

  46. Jim, get off me. You ride me harder than Seattle Slew. I have been nice and respectful to you. But if you start your antics I will have to quit dialoguing with you.

  47. Susan,

    I see Kevin ( Faith ) has directed you to Tim Kauffman’s blog. Go there only if you want to be offended and disgusted.
    Should you opt to take a peek, do scroll through the comments to see Kevin’s embarrassingly sycophantic praises of material that should be kept away from Catholic children . He is a tiger on this blog but over there he is a pussy cat lapping up the sour curdled milk of Tim Kauffman’s anti-Mary and anti-Blessed Sacrament hate.
    Kevin watchers know the source of what he has been posting over past several hours is pure Kauffmanism. He is a bit subdued as Jason or Nick may be lurking so he has to be careful or he may violate his probation may get himself booted again. Kevin has directed to read Kauffman’s magnum opus, a theory he has been working on for 24 years now. Basically, the demonic theory says that the Papacy arose centuries after Christ and seduced the world by introducing the Eucharist, the mark of the Beast of Revelation, in order to suppress JBFA.
    Since Kevin is being cagey about what he says, he has to bite his tongue and “innocently” encourage you to click on that site and drink in the vile poison yourself.
    Unless you are of a pugnacious or bellicose nature, I would suggest you click on a site that feeds , rather than, undermines, your Faith.

  48. Kevin,

    Please don’t be offended. I am only reacting to what you said to Susan. One of the 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy is to help out a fellow Catholic whose faith is being jeopardized. You sent a sister in Christ to read satanic material. I would be remiss if I kept silent and Susan was seduced by the lies you want her to read.

    Okay Kevin, you have a great day now.

    PS You can always scroll up to the top of the comments and click on “contacts”. There you can report me for picking on you. And while you are there, tell them what you did to Susan.

  49. OOPS!
    A minor detail. It was actually CK, a brother in Christ, who was directed by Kevin to Kauffman’s blog to read how the Papacy erected the Mark of the Beast ( a.k.a. The Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar ) to undermine JBFA.

  50. Kevin–you wrote, “God sent Luther and the Reformers to save the early church and the Apostles from the hair splitting academics who perverted the gospel.”

    This statement of yours jumped out at me…

    I’d like to see your evidence.

    A Pentecostal can say that “God sent the American revivalists of the early twentieth century to save the early church and the Apostles from the hair splitting academics who denied or downplayed the charisms of the Holy Spirit and held Christians captive to a form of spirituality which prevented them from experiencing God in a tangible way”.

    And a Jehovah’s Witness can say that “God sent Arius to save the early church and the Apostles from the hair splitting academics who perverted the true nature of Christ and invented the doctrine of the trinity under the influence of Greek philosophy or paganism”.

    So, why should we accept your assertion quoted above?

    (I do plan to reply to your other post, hopefully later today.)

  51. Everybody,

    Let’s get back to apologetics.
    Kevin has been “exposing” Rome for saying man can keep the law without Christ.
    No way! Look, Paul scrupulously kept the minutiae of the Torah ceremonies as any pharisee would. But he did it outside of Faith. He hated Christ.

    Then we have Simeon, Joseph, and Joseph of Arimathea who were good and just men. Notice how the Bible says Elizabeth and Zachary kept the precepts perfectly. They delighted in the Law. Unlike Paul, they were justified. They had Faith.

    As for the natural man or pagan that Kevin mentions, they could do good. Jesus said, ” If your son asks for a fish, you don’t give him a snake…”.

    However, naturally good works are not meritorius, They are like the works of a hireling as opposed to those of a son.

    When in a stste of grace, the Law is kept in our very being. Ezekial says so. So does Paul. And Jesus.

  52. I’m going to say it,
    anyone who has the Holy Spirit living within them will not be able to read Timothy Kauffman’s blog without quenching all that is holy, good, and pure. It is evil and straight from the pit of hell.

    “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Ephesians 4:30

  53. Kevin,

    The blog is supposed to be about the nature of justification. Maybe we should actually talk a bit about that rather than the ravings of a Catholic hater from another blog, okay?

    In order to understand how justification works, it might be a good idea to talk about where our our earthly justification is taking us, or what we call the Beatific Vision.

    In the Beatific Vision we will see God face to face, without any created image between us. This is a mystery. But we do know this actually starts here on earth in this life through Charity. St. Paul says created Charity is poured into our hearts by the gift of Uncreated Charity, a.k.a. the Holy Ghost. God Himself takes up residence in our souls. This prepares us for the Beatific Vision. This is what justifies us. Not an alien imputation.

    You have been hounding people on an almost hourly basis with “while we were yet sinners, God justified the ungodly…in his blood…etc”. By this passage you think you have proven your case for imputed righteousness applied to the accounts of God haters while they are still God haters.

    This would be as impossible for God to do as much as His making a square circle or a rock too heavy for Him to lift. It implies a contradiction in the God who is Truth Himself. God cannot declare something true that isn’t.

    All this passage means is that God loved us first and sent His Son to redeem us all.

    You keep bringing up that you are “positionally” seated with Christ in the heavenly places ( and don’t need any more sacrifices…).

    This only means if you don’t fall from grace you will get to heaven eventually ( after a very long time in purgatory perhaps ). It is like Paul calling his listeners saints meaning they should act like saints. Or telling them Christians no longer sin. It doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t sin. It just means they ought not sin. Think of a father scolding his little son who has just slapped his sister, ” boys don’t hit girls”.

    Kevin, you Calvinists really kinda’ know this stuff. That is why you place regeneration before Justification in your ordo salutis. A regenerated person should not be called “ungodly”.
    Where you err ( against the Lutherans and Arminians ) is in disregarding, ” You have been saved by grace through faith…” which shows Faith comes first before salvation.

    So, to understand justification, fast forward to heaven and what that will be like. Heaven is the flower planted in this life by sanctifying grace in our souls. An imputation of alien righteousness has no organic relationship to the Beatific Vision. Faith and Hope will pass away to vison leaving only Charity.

    Have a great day.

  54. Debbie,

    Yeah, especially hurtful are pictures of Mary, the Pope and the Blessed Sacrament presented for derision.

    You know, Kevin can stay there and say all the things he likes to say until doomsday. But he so desperately wants to be on this blog where he can say them TO US. That is what he calls “preaching the Gospel”.

    And to think he has been invited back.

  55. Debbie,

    By the way Debbie, are you and your husband cradle Catholics? Or converts? I have a theory why some things that cut cradle Catholics to the core of their being are so much water off a duck’s back for converts who came into the Church as adults.

    I am not saying one position is right and the other wrong. Just different. Converts are much more patient, it seems,than those of us who were raised Catholics, saw our parents go without vacations or new cars or whatever in order to scrounge together the bucks for salt and pepper cords and blue sweaters Some of us may have been on the business end of some nasty hate speech as kids. I’ll tell ya’ , there’s nothing quite like being called a “dirty catholic” as a kids to make you smell the rat of anti-Catholicism when it rears its ugly head from then on.

    Kenneth W., a good guy with a good heart, says he was once an anti-Catholic bigot who was won over by the long suffering of a Catholic who let him vent. So, I see the point of not being too rigid.
    Yet, Catholics, whether cradle or convert, should give zero tolerance to desecration, derision, mockery or blasphemy against Mary and the Eucharist. That is a line that shouldn’t be crossed just to be ecumenical. Not in my book.

  56. ” anyone who has the Holy Spirit living in the will not be able to read Timothy Kauffman’s blog quenching all that is holy, good and pure. Its evil and straight from the pit of hell.” Tim treats people with trust and respect. Many have problems with him because he challenges the idols that replace the gospel.

  57. “desecration, derision, mockery or blasphemy against Mary and the Eucharist”
    period
    Derision is a severe action,
    Mockery is a severe action,
    Blasphemy is a severe action,

    These should absolutely not be tolerated.

    No Christian should ever behave in this way, the behavior itself is anti-christ
    (I don’t care how sweetly Satan hisses in your ear, the action of desecration in any form is non-negotiable and is NOT imitating Christ)

  58. faith July 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    “Donald said ” Jesus founded a church before he ascended into heaven, Calvin founded a church about 1600 years later.” Your axiom of sola ecclesia is showing Donald in your recollection of History. I ask you to take your Roman glasses off for a moment and see the real history. God sent Luther and the Reformers to save the early church and the Apostles from the hair splitting academics who perverted the gospel. Luther was the first to exegete justification in the church, EVER. Erasmus admitted to Luther that Jerome, who knew no Hebrew and little greek, translated the word for justification to make righteous instead of declare righteous.”

    Since I once at least partially believed the history you tout now, one might assume that I have read additional history, by Protestant historians who believed that one should research and write history without regard to preserving the cult built up around the “reformers.”

    “God sent Luther and the Reformers to save the early church[.]” Since Luther’s arrival occurred in the mid-1500s, it might be construed as a bit late to save the early church. Since Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the early Baptists and more were in their own conflicts about what to believe (since they agreed to disagree), one might wonder how one joins Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the early Baptists and more into a coherent whole. [You cannot.]

    “Luther was the first to exegete justification in the church, EVER.” What good professional historian provided you with that information? Please cite the author, the book, and the page. (I will, for the sake of amicability, agree that Luther was the first to exegete Luther’s understanding of justification, EVER. Hopefully that will suffice.)

    “Erasmus admitted to Luther that Jerome, who knew no Hebrew and little greek, translated the word for justification to make righteous instead of declare righteous.” I’ll look forward to the citation for this idea.

    A consideration for you: Erasmus did not leave the Church.

    Lest you have a misimpression, I tilled these fields. I heard and read these arguments. I followed citations where they were available, and asked for them but often did not get them. I found enough on my own to determine that they were quite often pulled out of context and used to justify a position that they weren’t intended to support. When an idea is pulled out of context and used to support an idea it is not intended to support, that is a lie. It is a lie because some expert or other is being used to serve a position that was never intended to be served. Since we are supposed to be servants of the Truth, the Second Person of God, supporting a lie is not what we are supposed to be about.

    It took me years to get through this and figure this out. I started by rejecting some ideas that I found fallacious, one of the first being about Catholics and abortion, When Wade-Roe occurred I had no idea about abortion, but started trying to understand what was happening. I had an American understanding that we were due life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and realized that once deprived of life, there would be no liberty or the pursuit of happiness in this life.

    The only notable groups resisting abortion on demand? The Catholic Church and the LDS (which now has a different position). The pro-abortion camp introduced the idea that if Catholics were against abortion on demand, then it must be right, and they got a lot of Protestant agreement for that position.

    My own church at the time? Well abortion is a terrible choice but… If the individual is in charge, then the congregation is powerless. In addition the pastor must make a living for himself and his family, and standing on a principle which in unenforceable might lose him income.

    My own thought? If the Catholic Church is wrong, then it is culpable for being wrong, but if the Catholic Church is right, then it should be vindicated. No one should be blamed for being right, ever.

    Since you have decided to justify a position, good. However you must justify that position with truth given the Person you are claiming to represent. He is never served with a lie. Never.

  59. Christ is in heaven. His Spirit resides in true believers. WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians worship in SPIRIT and in truth thru faith. ” The righteous shall live by faith” God does not dwell in a building any more. The Temple was destroyed and we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit scripture says. 1 John 2:27 ” As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as IT has taught you, you abide in Him. You give you implicit faith in a church, we put it in the Word. But a church cannot save you.

  60. Kevin,

    What, pray tell, are those idols that replace the Gospel? On the blog that we shouldn’t be mentioning, the idols are Mary and the Eucharist. There, I said it for you.

    As for the stuff about Jerome, that is from the same source too. And the replacing JBFA alone with the Sacramental system is taken from the 3 part series on the Eucharist as the Mark of the Beast,isn’t it.
    Jason told me not to copy and paste from Kauffman’s. So why are you quoting the guy? And referring people from this blog to go there to see all the “good stuff”?

    I don’t get it Kevin. You are free to back-slap and hi-five Kauffman til the cows come home on his blog. You can say the horrendous things you can’t ( yet ) say on this blog and Kauffman gives you a lollilpop for saying them. You are king over there. And you have friends there.

    Why the obsession to be on this blog? I think I know. On that blog, there are no Catholics to read the cruel things you write.. You want so badly to say them TO us on this blog. You beg and degrade yourself to stay here. Why? Please don’t tell me you love Catholics but hate Catholicism. You hate us and enjoy hurting our feelings. That is what John MacArthur told you is pleasing to God.

    You are here because you hate the Catholic Church and want an audience to hear you shout it out from the rooftops.

    By the way, quit mentioning Debbie on that blog. A man shouldn’t fight with a woman, especially in a blog situation where she can’t fight back.

  61. “WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians worship in SPIRIT and in truth thru faith.” AMEN AMEN AMEN

    Now for that bit about desecration . . . the Holy Spirit cannot do this ACTION.

  62. Kevin,
    Who was that last post addressed to? Every single scripture passage you quoted is in our Bible too. Quit assuming it supports your position.

  63. Donald,

    “The only notable groups resisting abortion on demand? The Catholic Church and the LDS (which now has a different position). The pro-abortion camp introduced the idea that if Catholics were against abortion on demand, then it must be right, and they got a lot of Protestant agreement for that position.”

    Exactly. I told this to Robert and Eric during the contraception debates and it was not believed. Bernard Nathanson said they ran abortion through the courts by “playing the Catholic card” or knee-jerk American anti-Catholicism. IOW, If Catholics are against it, we are for it.

  64. Kevin,

    “The Temple was destroyed and we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit scripture says.”

    WOW! After spending 6 weeks reading Kauffman’s stuff on the book of Revelation, and you still don’t know what the book was talking about.
    Apostate Jerusalem is the Harlot destroyed along with its temple in 70 A.D. in order to reveal the Bride, the Church, the New Temple of the Holy Spirit.

  65. Donald ” What good professional provided you with that information.” The Roman church had no official position on justification until Trent which was counter Reformation. Luther’s exegesis dealt a fatal blow to Roman Catholic theology. ” Erasmus did not leave the church.” Depends on how you define church. If he wasn’t trusting in Christ alone then he wasn’t part of the church of the gospel of Christ. ” It is lie because some expert or other is being used to serve a position that was never intended to be served.” We both have an axiom. Its a fallible judgment informed by the Holy Spirit. Yours starts with Rome is infallible and end up with because Rome says it is infallible, circular. My starts the Word of God is infallible and end up with Roman Catholicism is not. You put your faith in a church, I put mine in the Word. But a church can’t save you. Donald, you made your decision on the gospel based on liberal opinions about abortion. Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic in good standing with your church and the Pope gave her the Eucharist. Rome does not discipline her heretics. Many Jesuit Priests aren’t even trinitarian, many are Pantheist. If there was ever a ” muddy mess” thrown in the cake mix its those that fall under the umbrella of Roman Catholicism. Here is where I agree with you. We must justify our position with the Truth. And who said He was the way. the Truth, and the life, was it the Roman church, no it was our Lord. Rome would have you believe it is Christ. It collapses the head into the body and usurps the place of the Holy Spirit. People put their implicit faith into the Roman church. I have known Presidents of Catholic schools who told me they know no scripture. So you are right we must support our positions with the Word. God bless you Donald. Have a great day. He is risen!

  66. Jim said ” Apostate Jerusalem is the harlot destroyed along with its Temple in 70 A.D. Convenient Preterits position of the Jesuits to make people look the other way. Tim has the target on it and any Catholic with an open heart to the truth will give him a serious read. Revelations 18:4 ” come out from her my people.”

  67. Kevin,

    ” Yours starts with Rome is infallible and end up with because Rome says it is infallible, circular. My starts the Word of God is infallible and end up with Roman Catholicism is not. ”

    Whoa! Our position is not circular. Yours is. We first approach the Bible as a trustworthy history book. ( Not inspired scripture ). We see Jesus build His Church on 12 men, chief of whom was Peter. He promised that Church to rule, teach and sanctify men down through the ages. He promised that Church the same power and authority He has.
    We look around at all the claimants and see the Catholic Church as that Church founded by Christ. We trust Christ’s promises and so make an act of faith.
    That Church, acting under Christ’s power, says the Bible is inspired and not just history. This anything but circular reasoning.

    You start by saying the Bible is inspired. Why? Then you continue to erroneously see the Church Christ founded having erred. That is crazier than circular.

  68. Kevin,

    ” the Jesuits to make people look the other way. Tim has the target on it and any Catholic with an open heart to the truth will give him a serious read. Revelations 18:4 ” come out from her my people.”

    Maybe Nick, Mateo, Jonathan or Jason can write piece on Revelation as a discussion topic. Are you up for that Kevin?

  69. Kevin,

    A fresh topic and a fresh start for all involved. This discussion is getting old. If the blog managers see this post, how about it? The book of Revelation.

    Kevin, wake up boy! Think about it soberly. Do you honestly think Timothy Q Kauffman has cracked the code of the book of revelation when no one else has in 2,000 years? Talk about crazy, circular or convoluted reasoning!

    Get some hot coffee down you. Walk off the booze. Breath deep.
    You are inebriated with that man’s nonsense. Why? What are his credentials?

    You trash Jerome yet believe some no-name guy named Tim who has an ax to grind? Maybe you actually should stay on this blog if it keeps you from wandering over there to drink the Kool-Aid.

  70. Jim said ” if it keeps you from wandering over there to drink the kool aid” Jim you put your implicit faith in a church that has no biblical support. You won’t find Priests, nuns, Cardinals, sacramental system of earning increases of salvation, indulgences, Mary mediation etc. anywhere in the NT. Who is drinking kool aid?

  71. All,

    Kevin didn’t direct me personally to Kauffman’s blog, but because it is hate filled and blasphemous, and a mischaracterization of Catholic doctrine and practice, nothing there can be used as a springboard for discussion. That sort of diatribe tries to put Catholicism on the defensive and while the Protestant may assume that he is right and the Catholic position wrong, unless he tries to lay aside his bigotry, desiring to have mutual respect of persons, there is not a shred of a chance that we can have true dialogue. The same goes for my side; If I found a vitriolic Catholic blog to argue down Protestants it too should not be allowed in any kind of fair and charitible discussion. So I’m only interested in dialoguing with Kevin to tell him what made me become Catholic and to talk about our differences, but not to defend myself against hits. Both sides can present what they believe the other side teaches and believes, but they have to be ready to let the other side correct them where they are wrong. So humily is also part of a true dialogue. If Kevin is up for that then we can really talk, if not it is simply a waste of time. That is, sitting at my keyboard and typing with no chance for respectful dialogue is a waste of time, NOT “Kevin is a waste of time”!

  72. Susan, thank you for exonerating me as to not sending you to Tim’s blog. Jim assassinates my character on a daily basis.

  73. Susan, I will dialogue with you anytime you want. Thx

  74. Susan,

    Exactly! As long as Kevin stays charitable…

    However, charity is something brothers share. Kevin delights in slapping away any olive branch extended to him as a brother. Catholics are not his brothers. Ask him.

    We are willing to accept him a brother, separated, but still a brother. On his side, he likes to tell us how he cannot compromise truth for touchy feely slop. He is proud to be elect, like the Pharisee sneering at the publican.

    He cannot dialogue. That would be to compromise with us children of Satan. He is here to proclaim his gospel. To knock down our graven images to smash our idols.

  75. Kevin,

    I have not assassinated your character. You accused me on TK’s blog of slandering you on this blog by copy and pasting things you said, say, and will say again.

    Call it whistle blowing, snitching, informing on, ratting out, tattling, exposing or fingering. But don’t call it slander.

    Tell us where I lied. Don’t slander me.

  76. Kevin,
    “Susan, thank you for exonerating me as to not sending you to Tim’s blog. Jim assassinates my character on a daily basis”

    Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, I corrected myself immediately after posting. It was CK you directed to Kauffman’s. Admit it.

    Unlike Susan, CK is not a new Catholic. He can handle himself on Kauffman’s. I was merely concerned that you were trying to steal the Faith, the Pearl of Great Price, from a new convert. I make no apologies. You did indeed send a brother (CK ) to what you hoped would be his downfall.

  77. Kevin,

    I am still hovering at my computer for a while. Gotta go to work then Holy Hour soon. I am dying to read your answer about why you trust Kauffman’s stuff on Revelation but think Jerome was a lousy exegete ( again, based solely on Kauffman’s opinion). You told Donald or Wosbald that Jerome was a fake because he didn’t read Hebrew ( although he studied with rabbis). Does Kauffman read Hebrew?

  78. Kevin,
    I got a train to catch. I have waited for your response but can’t anymore. Gotta run. Please don’t direct anymore Catholics to that other blog.

    It’s all about trashing devotion to Mary. Mary asked us at Fatima to make reparation for that kind of blog, not imbibe it. It is demonic.

    Five first Saturdays of reparation were requested to atone for the five ways in which people offend the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

    Attacks upon Mary’s Immaculate Conception;
    Attacks against her Perpetual Virginity;
    Attacks upon her Divine Maternity and the refusal to accept her as the Mother of all mankind;
    For those who try to publicly implant in children’s hearts indifference, contempt, and even hatred of this Immaculate Mother;
    For those who insult her directly in her sacred images.

  79. Debbie wrote:
    I’m going to say it,
    anyone who has the Holy Spirit living within them will not be able to read Timothy Kauffman’s blog without quenching all that is holy, good, and pure. It is evil and straight from the pit of hell.

    How do you know the Holy Spirit is living within you ? Thou shall not grieve the spirit of Debbie.

  80. Just for the record,

    My thread on natural law does not suggest that men can respond to Gods law apart from grace. That is all.

  81. Jim, said “we accept him as a brother.” This is misleading. Go on Kenneth’s site, his recent article, he explains what this means from an RC perspective. I could maybe worship with a bad Catholic, one who trusts in Christ alone and doesn’t hold to the doctrines of the RC. But I don’t consider Catholics who hold to Roman Catholic doctrine in any way a brother or sister in Christ. We believe different gospels. When Protestants go to Rome they look back and thank Protestants for bringing them half way and now they found “full communion” when Catholics come to the gospel and leave the RC for aProtestant church they aren’t going to look back and thank them for white washing the tombs. What those who go to Rome say it is fuller communion, those who are leaving say a false gospel, a return to the OT sacrificial system with a Priest and an imperfect continuing sacrifice which can’t regenerate anyone. If it regenerated someone you wouldn’t need Purgatory and a continuing sacrifice for sins. We believe that we HAVE BEEN regenerated, reconciled, redeemed, justified, adopted, sealed in the Spirit, seated in heaven with Him at His altar Romans 5;1,9. For us He is Lord and Savior, risen for our justification, which guaranteed our salvation Romans 4:16! We sing the amen with the church for the Good News that we have been set free, and NOTHING can separate us from the love of God Romans 8:37, 39. We don consider it fuller communion to be told that he came to make salvation possible and to not fully regenerate us until a final test on how we did with sacraments. We don’t think its fuller communion to say He isn’t Lord and savior and is still on the cross. And we don’t consider it fuller communion for an earthly altar. He ripped the veil away and took down all barriers between us and God. We go right into the altar in heaven thru the only mediator and give Him spiritual sacrifices and prayers. We do all this because we are a royal priesthood, temple of the Holy Spirit, seated with him in the heavenly places. Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. We don’t go to an earthly altar to adore, we go to heaven in the Spirit in prayer, and we go to our window and say with the writer of Revelations, ” even so come quickly Lord Jesus. We look for His glorious return for the rest of he crop, for he is the first fruits. Hebrews says that when He returns a second time it won’t be in reference to sin, but to gather His people. No Purgatory for us. Glory

  82. Kenneth, you did a whole article on how all men understand that their final evaluation will be on the law written on their hearts. And how god gave them this capacity, And you went on an on about how sola fide is put out of business by this truth. And now you are saying what? What is grace actually doing for men so enlightened? Hope you are well.

  83. “Faith”

    I already know what Calvinism teaches and what it believes about Catholicism, so instead of telling Catholicism what Reformed theology believes about Catholic theology it would be better for us to make sense of our differeing beliefs one at a time, WHILE you set aside( at least for the sake of discussion) any bigotry. Again, there has to be charity and it isn’t charitable to throw a bunch of Reformed doctrine or scriptures, which the Catholic already knows, at the Catholic with whom you “say” you are willing to dialogue.

    Let’s start with what is meant by the term “fuller communion”. What the Catholic means by this is that there is such a thing as a locus of orthodoxy.

    ~Susan

  84. Kevin,

    I’m glad Zeitgeist wasn’t around on youtube during your young informative years. Otherwise you’d be directing us to the video as proof that Jesus is based on a pagan god.

    I don’t need to go to the website you directed me to, to believe that St Jerome had absolutely no understanding of Hebrew and very little Greek and yet managed to translate the bible to Latin. All I need to do is suspend any disbelief.

    Assuming you have no understanding of Russian, I will go out on a limb and say you could not translate a Russian children’s book to English.

    Does it mean the Vulgate translate everything perfectly? No, but at least St. Jerome didn’t feel the need to purposely add words to the word of God like Luther did in order to convince people of his novel teaching.

  85. Kev,

    Man being aware of the law that God has written on his heart and man being able to RESPOND to that law are two different things.

  86. Kenneth, ya, and my point is that the gospel, the Good News isn’t in us by nature, it is revealed from heaven Mat. 16:17, John1:13. The law is. We divide this into 2 parts Law and Gospel. The law leads us to Christ. Ignorance of the distinction has been the principal sources of abuse which corrupted Christianity and still does. The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the gospel was a easier law than the OT and Jesus as a softer Moses. So instead of allot of rules, God only expects love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin said ” as if loving God with all of heart soul and mind we could find anything more difficult. The law can only condemn man. ” Rome can only see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack, not realizing the Law requires perfect obedience. To corrupt them is to corrupt faith at it’s core.”

  87. Susan , Hi, I’m am fully willing to have a pleasant back and forth with you. I hope you will understand that areas where we disagree will no way convey bigotry. I will not make it personal. You have your reasons for being where your are. Awesome to start what you mean by fuller communion.” Locus of orthodoxy” What would that mean? You tell me and then I will retort. Hope you are having a good day.

  88. Robert, when I saw this quote from Horton, I thought you might find it interesting. ” Bonhoeffer was especially critical of the fusion of Christ with His church , and he identified this tendency with philosophical idealism. Like Platonism, idealist philosophy transforms ethical categories ( like sin and grace) into ontological ones ( like time and eternity), assimilating eschatology to the plane of immanence, and reducing the many to the one. Thus the state is the highest form of collectivity.”

  89. CK, one man’s novel teaching is another man’s biblical gospel. Let me get this right, your down with Jerome misinterpreting justification, the hinge, but Luther exegeting it correctly is adding words. Got it.

  90. faith July 21, 2014 at 7:41 am

    Donald ” What good professional provided you with that information.”

    Johann Georg Walch, a Lutheran historian, is responsible for a 24-volume edition of Luther’s writings. He included information from Luther’s friends and Luther’s enemies.

    Walch XII, 788 “We will spend the day like Lutherans.” “Drunkeness has come on us like a deluge.”

    Walch IX, 1311 “I confess… that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope, and there is nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among the monks and priests.”

    Walch VI, 920 “If God,” he says, “had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the gospel.”

    Abstract

    In 1520 at the instigation of the influential Cardinals Giulio de’ Medici and Nicholas von Schönberg, Ambrosius Catharinus Politus was asked to undertake the defence of the Church against Luther. Catharinus wrote the Apologia of 1520 at great speed, but he did not betray the trust that had been placed in him. Indeed, the resulting work may with plausibility be considered the literary origin of the Counter-Reformation. The main argument of this article is that the eleven ways of deceiving the people that Catharinus ascribed to Luther in Book I of the Apologia were tantamount to the claim that Luther was Antichrist. Luther was angered by the innuendo and responded in 1521 by applying the ‘Antichrist’ description not to any specific individual but to the entire papal church. In reading Daniel 23–5 as a prophecy of a Church that was the instrument of Satan, Luther revealed a remarkable comic gift, but he did not answer the case that Catharinus had made against him in a very different polemical style.

    I will assume that you can google Luther’s words against the pope. There are so many of them that a relatively small overview will give you a good idea of how Luther saw the pope.

    Lord Macauley, British historian, on the papacy: The Papacy remains: not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigor. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine: and still confronting hostile kings in the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. …

    Nor do we see any signs which indicate that the term of her long duration is approaching. She saw the commencement of governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all.

    Macauley: Essay on Ranke’s History of the Popes.

    The Colloquy of Marburg was an attempt to resolve a theological dispute between Luther and Zwingli.

    Friedrick Paulsen, non-Catholic, History of the Learned Instructions from the End of the Middle Ages to the Present, 1896, p 213 F “Revolution is the only term by which the Reformation should be described…. Luther’s work was no reformation, no ‘re-forming’ of the existing Church by means of her own institutions, but the destruction of the old shape, in fact, the fundamental negation of any Church at all. He refused to admit any earthly authority in matters of faith, and regarding morals his position was practically the same, he left the matter up to the individual conscience… Never has the possibility of the existence of any ecclesiastical authority whatsoever been more rudely denied. p 173

    Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Protestant, author of Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, published in 1911. “It was in his 20th year, he [Luther] tells us, that he first saw a complete copy of the Scriptures in the university library of Erfurt. He had hitherto supposed that they embraced only the lessons read in the public services and was delighted to find much that was quite unfamiliar to him. His ignorance, it may be remarked, though not exceptional, was his own fault. The notion that Bible reading was frowned upon by the ecclesiastical authorities of the age is quite unfounded.” The Scriptures “were read regularly in church, and their study was no more prohibited to university students of that day than of this.”

    There is a lot more of this. I have other cites that I haven’t bothered to give.

    I would recommend the unabridged versions of Luther’s own writings, if you can find the unabridged copies to read. You may be surprised at what Luther thought, and what Luther wrote.

    My reading of Calvin was thinner but there is also good material there, Protestant material, which might be validly perused in hope of gaining insight in the Calvin’s character.

    You: “Erasmus did not leave the church.” Depends on how you define church. If he wasn’t trusting in Christ alone then he wasn’t part of the church of the gospel of Christ”

    I have noted in my past endeavors that Calvinists have a vocabulary where the words mean different things than they do to Catholics. I found that truth (and it is a truth) to be an evasion. A real Calvinist does not believe in free will. One is either elect or reprobate, God having made them so. The will is darkened and reason cannot operate. One wonders, if someone actually read Calvin, why they would believe a man who’s reason cannot be trusted to provide the truth?

    Yet it is ever so. Joseph Smith gained a congregation with his speaking and writing expounding his ideas which were accepted by some; and yes I do know that Calvin and Joseph Smith believed the same things differently which means that they believed different things and shared a vocabulary.

    So the Calvinist position on free will and the Catholic position on free will differ significantly. I am not condemned either to heaven or hell but, because God in His wisdom gave me a free will, I can through grace either cooperate with Him, or deny Him. He condemns me to neither but does not deny Himself to me. That is a very real difference with Calvin’s reprobate who is condemned by people who have decided that God has declared it to be so. There is free will and there is a very constrained idea of free will.

    For those who are reprobate, God is not love no matter what the apostle wrote, because God has condemned those people before they were ever conceived. No love there.

    For those who are reprobate, Jesus is not the Savior or the Redeemer or the Messiah as He won’t be saving or redeeming them.

    The theological virtue of hope does not exist within Calvinism (or to give them their due, the “OSAS” believers). There is no place for hope. There is no place for good works, those imitations of God done for the love of God and neighbor. It behooves no one to do a work which is dismissed out of hand even if Jesus told us to “feed the hungry, clothe the naked,” etc.

    So now we get to the part where you are defining the meaning of ‘church’ so that you can put a check mark of some sort next to Erasmus’ name. Really? Are you the arbiter of truth? Do you really want to be responsible for judging the state of Erasmus’ soul? Is there a Lawgiver and Judge Who is responsible for examining us? Would that position and function be His?

    You: “Its a fallible judgment informed by the Holy Spirit. Yours starts with Rome is infallible and end up with because Rome says it is infallible, circular. My starts the Word of God is infallible and end up with Roman Catholicism is not. You put your faith in a church, I put mine in the Word. But a church can’t save you. Donald, you made your decision on the gospel based on liberal opinions about abortion”

    My position starts with Rome being infallible. Correct. That was not always my position but it is my position now and, based on scripture and history, it holds. Jesus founded a Church on the apostles and gave them the authority they needed to maintain and build His Church. He is the head. Peter is long asleep. John Paul II is long asleep. Peter’s successors come up repeatedly. They work for Him.

    You believe in the Triune God. The Church defined that understanding. You believe in a truncated scripture. The Church defined the canon as 73 books, and Protestantism kept 66 of them. Luther would have dumped more but he could not get away with it.

    You have misstated your position. Your position does not start with the Word of God being infallible, it starts with your interpretation of what you are reading. It starts with unaided human reason and an infallible but truncated book, defined by the Church back about 17 or 18 centuries ago.

    The Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in its decision on which books were apostolic in nature and which weren’t, that ‘apostolic’ consideration being the dividing line since there were several very good documents written by the early Church fathers which would not be included in the canon. I’ve read at least a couple of very good books on the history of scripture, which names I cannot remember off-hand but would suggest that such reading would broaden your horizons on this issue.

    I am a Catholic. I wasn’t before but am now. It was scripture that got me there. It was Jesus’ words which I found cogent. I had a choice, I could believe Him or I could dismiss Him whenever I disagreed with Him. He founded a Church. Matthew 16:18 described what He did. I could not dismiss Him in favor of my own interpretation. I read it clearly. Either He is right or He is not. He said the gates of hell would not prevail. Either He is right or He is not. I have no doubt that you can see where this is going.

    If your faith is in scripture, your faith is in how you are interpreting scripture. If you want to see a quick real-time example of “how people interpret scripture,” merely open your Yellow Pages to Church and read the major subheadings. I am sure that they will tell you that they are guided by the Holy Spirit (where they believe in the Holy Spirit) and are “bible believing,” which they are except when they are not.

    Your argument is not with me. I am not that important. As Catholics go, I am a mere pew sitter. No great shakes.

    I don’t know what it would cost you if you left where you are at. Family? Perhaps. Friends? Assuredly! The comfort of years of conformity to the service and enjoyment of the familiar? Probably. Yet we are told to count the cost. We are told to pick a side.

    Next time you are reading the scriptures, ask Him to show you something that you hold that disagrees with what He said. He will. He does love you and He does want you with Him for eternity. Or, if you are really brave, ask His mother. She represents Him perfectly.

  91. Kevin,

    You said CK, one man’s novel teaching is another man’s biblical gospel. Let me get this right, your down with Jerome misinterpreting justification, the hinge, but Luther exegeting it correctly is adding words. Got it.

    Me – no Kevin I’m first challenging your statement that St Jerome knew no Hebrew and very little Greek, but somehow managed to translate the books of the bible into Latin.

    I know St Jerome got s

  92. Continuing… I know he got some things wrong, but there is a difference between translating by knowingly adding non existent words to sell your own interpretation and changing the meaning of sentences (Luther) & just writing it like it is.

    So Kevin do you think it’s possible to translate from a language you don’t know without using Google?

  93. Kevin,

    You said ““Erasmus admitted to Luther that Jerome, who knew no Hebrew and little greek, translated the word for justification to make righteous instead of declare righteous.” I’ll look forward to the citation for this idea.”

    Me – Don’t know anything about Erasmus, but what did Erasmus have at his disposal that we don’t have today to make the same determination? I venture to guess that it was his professional opinion and we have more information available to us today to make a better determination.

    Btw, I find it amusing that St Ignatious of Antioch (a diciple of John) understanding of the Eucharist among other things is ignored by you, but Erasmus statement is rock solid.

    Just saying…

  94. Good evening all. I have been reading over posts to this blog page for quite some time now and have decided to put in my two-cents worth. I am a United Methodist.(might as well get that out of the way right now) Seems to me you guys are trying real hard to keep from grabbing each other by the neck and giving a good shake. Kevin sounds like an automated electronic response mechanism in endless loop while Jim seems to be irritated at every little thing Kevin says.

    You all seem to have as much passion about your particular brand of Faith as the next–Debbie, Eric, Robert, Layne, Mateo– which makes you wander off topic quite a bit. Doctrine against doctrine. Dogma against dogma. Bible verse against bible verse. Pitting one Church Father against another. Pitting a Church Father against himself. Telling each other what the other’s Church believes when it really doesn’t. I’ve never seen as much beating around the bushes since Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr.

    Now tell me, why does it matter when you were justified? Or how you are justified? Or whether you have works with faith, or have works following faith? If God is the only one who searches the heart, how can anyone of you know what is on the others heart and whether he or she is justified or not?

    Gimme something concrete as to why there shouldn’t be the First United Roman Calvanist Church?

  95. Kevin,

    Please don’t feel smug for demurring the Catholic overture to be our brother in Christ. Personally, I don’t want you as a brother and feel relieved you spurned the offer. I am just acknowledging your Baptism which made you a Christian. As Catholics, we are like soldiers under orders. Vatican II said to quit seeing you as a guy steeped in heresy and to start reaching out to you as a brother. That is a bitter pill to swallow.

    You see Kevin we Catholics have biblical Faith ( not some empty hand stuff ).
    At the beginning and at the end of Romans St. Paul speaks of the “obedience that is Faith”. The Church has told me I have to love you like a brother. Love takes an act of the will. Thank God the Church hasn’t said I must like you. Liking is a matter of human feeling. On a purely natural level, I don’t like you. As a matter of fact, I actually…., well, um, yeah. Let’s not go there.
    I luv ya’ bro!

  96. Bob,

    Thank God for an Arminian! It is so nice to see a Protestant who isn’t a Calvinist.

  97. Kevin,

    I would contest that Jerome made any mistake in using the term “justificare“. I think he used the word that accurately depicts the message that Saint Paul intended to send. Ive recently completed a one stop resource for catholics who encounter this dubious claim.

    See here
    http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/justified-2/

  98. Donald, I appreciate the long list of references on Luther. Would you like me to post the History of the Roman church and the Papacy. Do you want writings on the Inquisition, Crusades, or maybe what selling indulgences was. I cannot go into all these things because I am not allowed to. But my point is that you said to me we should point to the word when we decide truth. And actually that is a Protestant point I agree with. Do you want me to concede that Luther and Calvin had many flaws, i will, but so do you and I. You don’t want to hear what I have done at points in my life. David cheated with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, Peter denied the Lord 3 times and Jesus called him Satan. The man in 1 Corinthians 5 was sleeping with his fathers wife and Paul said he was worse that all the gentles put together. He delivered him over to satan to be sifted so his souls would be saved. God uses sinners Donald. Paul said Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom I AM chief, not was. Luther said he got saved from a church of saints. God uses heavily flawed men. He’s got know use for those who think they are righteous, or devout. I know a few of those people, do you. They got something you don’t have, you know. The inside stuff! I will consider all your words, thanks for the post.

  99. Ck,

    Erasmus was Luther’s enemy. He debated Luther on freewill. It is weird that Kevin quotes him on Jerome. Erasmus would have anything to do with a Calvinist like Kevin. Just one more example of Kevin’s confusion.

    Besides, Erasmus was no saint nor the Pope. Who care what he said? Kevin picks and chooses what/who he quotes for no rhyme or reason.

  100. Kevin,

    “Do you want me to concede that Luther and Calvin had many flaws, i will, but so do you and I.’

    Yeah, but you and I don’t start churches based on our own authority like these bozos did.

  101. Bob, you sound a little like the guy who drives by the church and says there are a bunch of hypocrites in there. Come in an join us . Come out of the stands and get in the ball game. These are important topics. And Jason and the guys do a great job of providing topics for discussion.

  102. Jim wrote to Bob:
    Thank God for an Arminian! It is so nice to see a Protestant who isn’t a Calvinist.

    No surprise !
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7200654949

  103. Jjm, one man’s bozo is another man’s freedom fighter. 5 Solas bro.

  104. Bob,

    Now tell me, why does it matter when you were justified? Or how you are justified? Or whether you have works with faith, or have works following faith?

    Because Paul anathematizes anyone who teaches a doctrine of justification that is not the one he taught.

    If God is the only one who searches the heart, how can anyone of you know what is on the others heart and whether he or she is justified or not?

    Of course, no one can absolutely know the state of another’s heart. But again, Paul pronounces a curse on those who deny his gospel. If Roman Catholicism does that, it is under a curse. If Protestantism does that, it’s under a curse.

    The key question is what did the Apostles teach about justification?

  105. Jim said ,” you see Kevin We Catholics have biblical faith.” Jim biblical faith regenerates a person and justifies him and saves him. Yours does neither. If you were regenerated thru your faith you wouldn’t need a sacramental system to merit more of it. And if it justified you really, then you wouldn’t need a sacramental system to merit more of it. So here is what I would say about Roman Catholic faith, it is mental assent to put someone in suspended conditional justification, suspended conditional regeneration. So Christ came into this world not to save sinners, but to put them in a suspended state cooperative salvation to be determined when you die. Boy the good news and fuller communion just keeps rolling. LOL How was your train ride? Did you say you went to work today?

  106. After reading some of the comments I see that there isn’t much hope for anything fruitful here. It really takes time and patience to be in constant dialogue and I don’t have a lot of either. Sorry for bowing out, but it’s the smart thing for me to do.

  107. Susan, I really was looking forward to you explaining locus of orthodoxy to me. If you prefer I wont respond, ill just listen. I hope you reconsider. I see the fullest communion as I explained in previous post to you. But I would love to hear your perspective.

  108. Kevin–you wrote,

    1) “I said works aren’t meritorious in salvation.”

    I never said that you did. Let’s review what I wrote:

    ‘If “works” have nothing to do with salvation, and a true Christian can never be lost, how do you explain Romans 11:22?: “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”’

    You didn’t address my question in the least.

    2) “1 John 5:13 ” these things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” Thats how. And Paul says nothing can separate us from the love of God Romans 8:39.”

    But how do you know that, in ten years, you won’t wake up and decide that praying, reading the Bible, going to church, spending time with other Calvinists, and indeed believing in Christianity are a load of nonsense?

    How do you know that you aren’t one of those souls who has been deluded into thinking that he or she is truly saved?

    3) “Baptism is a sign of the promise, but it means nothing without faith. We are regenerated and saved by faith, hearing the word of God by the work of the Spirit. Romans 5:17, 1 Peter1:23, James 1:18. and not by baptism.”

    I never claimed that “it means [something] without faith”. What I want to know is the following: if baptism “is a sign of the promise”, then how can we honestly administer it to anyone? They might turn out to be a “fake Christian” one day, and baptism will be a “sign” of… nothing. It will thus have been little more than a deception, both for the person who was baptized and for those who witnessed the event.

    4) “‘communion is beneficial for the forgiveness of sins’ Maybe you don’t know this but the Roman Catholic Mass is another true sacrifice according to Trent and a work on the part of the believer to propitiate his sin and merit increase of justice and grace. Hebrews 10:14 says by one sacrifice once He perfected for all time those for whom He died. verse 18 says there are no more sacrifices for sin. ” These Reformers sure didn’t fit your narrative were they saved?” My narrative? I’m a Calvinist and a Reformed Christian who believes in JBFA.”

    It looks like my words went in one ear and out the other… again. Let’s review what I wrote:

    ‘According to a confessional (WELS) Lutheran pastor I met with for a while, baptism changes the soul and communion is beneficial for “the forgiveness of sins”.

    ‘I’ve also read that, while denying baptismal regeneration, Calvin believed in the grace-bestowing effect of the Lord’s Supper.

    ‘These “Reformers” sure don’t fit your narrative. Were they saved?’

    What I want to know is the following: given what Luther, Calvin, and/or their followers–all good Protestants in your view, correct?–believe about baptism and communion, why do you declare Catholics to be non-Christians? Remember, you originally stated,

    “The Reformers were incensed with Rome because it had made sacraments into a work to EARN increase of grace and justice, a way to remit one’s sins by this work. They saw it as a violation of salvation offered as a free gift through faith alone.”

    By your own standards, Luther–and perhaps Calvin–couldn’t have been Christian.

  109. Trebor said ” Explain Romans 11:22. Ok take your Roman glasses off for a few minutes. One isn’t saved because he DID believe, one is saved because he DOES believe. ” The righteous shall live by faith” Jesus says He loses NONE that are his. Listen to Romans 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE.” True believers persevere, its is a gift of God.The counsel of God is not changed by merits and demerits. Ephesians says that we were chosen before there were ever any good works performed. And Ephesians 1:just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be Holy and blameless before Him” As I told you true believers will produce good works. Romans 9:11 ” for though the twins were not born yet and had DONE NOTHING BAD OR GOOD, so that God’s purpose according to His CHOICE would stand, NOT because of works but because of Him who calls.” Still have your glasses off. ” But how do you know in ten years……… ” Refer to 1st answer and I don’t deal in hypotheticals. how do I know the Pope isn’t really Frank Sinatra. The Spirit gives all trusting in Christ alone assurance thru 5:13. ” They may turn out to be a fake Christian someday.” Ya think of all the RC’s out there that thought the magic water of baptism regenerated them and it didn’t. I suggest you read Chapter 4. Paul explains circumcision and how Abraham was justified by faith before the sign. It will help you to understand. The Reformers never held that baptism saved a man. It is a necessary thing in RC theology among the pile of other things on top of faith to be saved. Just study the RCIA 27 things and 1 year you have to do before you can be baptized and justified as an adult. You keep quoting me the Lutheran pastor’s perspective on communion, but your in the RC. Thats why I quoted that. And what he said is right we confess our sins at communion. But our position before God isn’t changed or our justification isn’t increased, get it. Its a GIFT of God to confirm the grace freely given us thru faith. In Rome its an abominable work to merit increase of justice. And unless I’m mistaken your in Rome. Don’t tell me that the Reformers believed that anything but faith alone justified. They led the Reformation remember, 5 solos. ” How do I know that I’m not one of the deluded souls…..” The inner witness of the Spirit working thru the word of God. 1 John2:27, you might enjoy that verse. Its a tough one for the implicit faith in an infallible church like Rome.

  110. Trebor, that should be 5 solas not solos. I’m a musician and write solo sometime. God bless

  111. Bob, you ask:

    Now tell me, why does it matter when you were justified?

    If you don’t know when you were justified, you don’t know that you are justified.

  112. Jason,

    ” the magic water of baptism

    Why don’t you dump the guy for this kind of rhetoric?

  113. Kevin,

    “biblical faith regenerates a person and justifies him and saves him. Yours does neither. If you were regenerated thru your faith you wouldn’t need a sacramental system to merit more of it. And if it justified you really, then you wouldn’t need a sacramental system to merit more of it.”

    Since when is a Calvinist regenerated by Faith?

    Hey, Catholics! Do we merit grace by the Sacraments? I know we merit by good works. I don’t think we merit through the Sacraments as they are not works..

  114. Bob,

    What is your church’s position on contraception and abortion?

    Does it matter?

    Does anything matter?

  115. Jim, that coment about baptism was inthe course.of response and was not used disrespectfully. And you do meiit increase thru the sacraments. God bless

  116. Kevin,

    Hmmmm. I don’t think that is the way we talk. Show me a document.

    What about regeneration by Faith?

  117. Kevin,

    Ask Eric or Robert. Faith really isn’t necessary in your system. You have been saved from eternity, never really lost. Even Jesus is secondary. He came and died only to make official that decree.

    Beside, you keep saving we are saved at the cross, by the blood. Christ is our righteousness, you say.. Let’s say Jesus does matter in your system.. Then why is faith needed. You were saved 2000 years on Calvary.

    Bob the Arminian says regeneration comes by Faith. “You have been saved by grace thru faith…”

    Calvinists say regeneration precedes faith or it is a work ( according to Calvinists).

  118. Catholics!

    Help me out. Do we MERIT by the Sacraments. Yes, I know we grow in grace, but merit is a term reserved for good works, is it not?

    Prayer, good works and reception of the Sacraments increase grace in our soul. Technically, only works “merit”. Maybe we merit by climbing a mountain and crossing a desert to get to Mass on a day we are not required to go. But the mountain climbing and desert crossing are meritorious. Receiving Communion gives us the grace already merited by Christ, Right?

    Perhaps it is a minor point but let’s get our terms right.

  119. Kevin,

    Since you are up past your bedtime blogging, let chat about Calvinism for a minute.
    I watched a utube video yesterday by Greg Koukl. I used to kinda’ know the guy 20 or 25 years ago and liked him. I didn’t like his views on Catholicism ( lapsed Catholic himself ) but he was a good apologist for the existence of God, moral absolutes and pro-life stuff.

    Anyway, the video I saw was about Calvinism. Koukl’s hair has gone grey and bald but it was the same old Greg Koukl.
    You know Kevin, when he started talking about, ” The mystery is not why all men aren’t saved but why any men are saved…”, the guy I once though was so intelligent looked like an idiot.

    Kevin, examine what you said about regeneration, faith and salvation. Even Bob the United Methodist makes more sense.
    Calvinists assume an air of superiority over their fellow Protestants. They can often speak of Augustine and claim him for themselves. The TULIP petals are all so interlocked that the Calvinist position appears to be iron-clad. At first.

    Like I said, Koukl, with his measured speech, eyes wandering and knitted brow was so intent on what he was saying. I felt a mixture of pity and disgust for the poor man.
    Pick any one of those tulip petals and start pulling a bit. The whole thing falls apart.

    Now go to bed. Your wife is loosing patience with your non-stop blogging.

  120. Jim, thats right regeneration precedes faith. The Spirit uses the Word to regenerate us and bring us to faith. Its all a work of God. Repentance and faith are gifts of God. All of salvation is from the Lord. Sanctification is a supernatural work of God. It is a divine operation of the soul., whereby the Holy disposition born in regeneration is strengthened and holy exercises are increased. Put it this way. Sanctification is a good work of God. I act the miracle. But accepting a gift is not a work.

  121. Kevin,

    Why did you chase Susan away?

    You told her Catholics have Jesus on the cross still suffering. After being told dozens of times we don’t teach that, you went and lied to her anyway. Why?

    As for meriting by the Sacraments, Baptism cannot be merited ( Titus 3:5 ). So one couldn’t merit from Baptism. 9 Still waiting for feedback from other Catholics on this point. Let’s clear it up once and for all ).

    Why don’t you care to get it right? People lurk and see the bizarre things you rant about and want no part of this blog.

  122. Kevin,
    Yeah, I know your system but you don’t know mine.

    You start with election. We start with Jesus. That is why the Jesuits defeated Calvinists with a picture of the Sacred heart.
    Jesus reveals the Father. You say election reveals Jesus.

  123. Kevin,

    So, as a Calvinist, you deny we are saved by Faith, right? Instead, Faith follows salvation for you guys. Only those already elect, chosen, saved, will come to Faith. Faith is neither meritorious ( we agree ) nor the condition of being saved but really, the result, huh?

    As Robert and Eric have proven by their statements on grace, the Sacraments and regeneration, all hinges on the doctrine of Election. If one is not elect, they never receive grace in the Sacraments anyway so the Sacraments are really unnecessary.

    In your system, Jesus came only for the elect sheep. To hell with the others.

    Kevin! Come out of the cult. Get de-programmed. You are a hypnotized zombie.

    Start with Jesus. Read the parables and interpret Paul in light of Christ, not the other way around. Read the Good Samaritan. Jesus spoke this parable in answer to the question of how we get saved.

    The Sacred Heart of Jesus reveals the love of the Father for ALL men. Start there and work backwards to election. Don’t start with the decrees and work forward to see a miserly Jesus who saves some and passes others by.

    Pick one petal of the tulip and really examine it. Take unconditional election, the one Koukl babbled on about. Ponder it. Pray about it. ( Why do Calvinists even pray?) Pick any petal you choose. The system is not Biblical. It is totally man made.

  124. faith July 21, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    “Donald, I appreciate the long list of references on Luther. Would you like me to post the History of the Roman church and the Papacy. Do you want writings on the Inquisition, Crusades, or maybe what selling indulgences was. I cannot go into all these things because I am not allowed to.

    Luther said he got saved from a church of saints. God uses heavily flawed men. He’s got know use for those who think they are righteous, or devout. I know a few of those people, do you. They got something you don’t have, you know. The inside stuff!”

    I would be surprised if many adults coming into the Church did not have at least a rudimentary idea about the Church, the papacy, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the sale of indulgences. I certainly did and I had first gained at least the names used as a Protestant.

    But in this case, I was looking for references from an earlier missive you wrote and I haven’t seen those references yet.

    You: “I cannot go into all these things because I am not allowed to.” ?

    You: “Luther said he got saved from a church of saints. God uses heavily flawed men. He’s got know use for those who think they are righteous, or devout. I know a few of those people, do you. They got something you don’t have, you know.”

    Luther revolted from the Church. How could that be salvation?

    You: “God uses heavily flawed men.” Sometimes, but sometimes the men aren’t flawed so deeply as you might think. One is reminded of Joseph in Egypt, or of Joseph the husband of Mary and stepfather of Jesus. One suspects that those men weren’t deeply flawed, and one could reasonably suspect that there are lots of others, less well known, who qualify for the title ‘righteous’ and ‘Saint.’ Not impeccable (sinless) but righteous for having responded to the grace they were given.

    You: “He’s got know use for those who think they are righteous, or devout.” It would appear that you are putting words in His mouth at this point. Judging people you don’t know and discarding them based on your perception. It would appear that we are back at the God is love except when He is not and the Jesus is the Savior except when He is not end of your theological perspective.

    Do remember that not only did I go to something, I left something behind. When I accepted Christ I became an evangelical Pentecostal because they exuded joy. They weren’t dour, they weren’t harshly judgmental, they actually recognized that what Jesus had done for them was “good news.” What you did with “He’s got know use for those who think they are righteous, or devout” is not good news. I rejected your thinking early on, and I rejected your willingness to enact judgment early on. Why? His gift to me was really good news for a sinner in need of salvation. His love for me is quite real, an anchor in this life and a lifeline to the next.

    I did not want Him to look at me and ask me about my judgment of others, because the gospel is quite clear about my being seen by Him in the same way I see others.

    I did tell you that when I was a Protestant I found we ‘believed’ what He said except when we did not ‘believe’ what He said, which was the cause of my second search and the driving factor in my becoming a Catholic. Your disparagement of others, a judgment which is harsh and condemnatory, needs to be examined in light of Jesus’ words, if you are His.

    Great care needs to be taken as presumption is a sin and presuming that you are the judge falls in that category.

  125. There is an idea here which I could not source but which is attributed to Kevin. It involves the cross with a corpus on it, eg, a crucifix.

    In Acts, Paul visits Athens in 51 AD and preaches about Jesus and the resurrection. He does not find my traction there and is unable to leave a functioning congregation behind.

    In 56 AD Paul writes in 1st Corinthians, “we preach Christ crucified.” That fact in-formed the earliest Churches and it is reflected in the art used by those Churches. In the west, the crucifix upholds Paul’s recognition of preaching Christ crucified. In the east, it is common practice to paint a body on the icon of the cross.

    What happened to Paul between 51 and 56 AD? We are not told. Could it be revelation? Maybe. Could it be reason? Maybe. However what is important is what Paul came to understand: “We preach Christ crucified” whether in speaking or in writing or in art.

  126. Comment

  127. Correction: He does not find my traction there, should read He does not find ANY traction there.

  128. Donald,

    I wish I had a dollar for every time I have told Kevin what you just told him about the crucifix. He isn’t here to dialogue. He is here to preach. He loves to say, “Let Jesus off the cross and off your altars”. Within 36 hours he will say it again as if you never told him otherwise. You see Donald, Kevin disrespects us so much he doesn’t bother to take any correction or clarification into account as it doesn’t fit his narrative.

  129. Jim, when you do penance you earn a merit and increase your spiritual bank account, you also increase in grace and justice at Mass,

  130. Donald said ” Luther revolted from the church, how could that be salvation” We are saved by faith alone in the Word, not faith in a church. The church isn’t the Word. The church can’t save you only the Word. Be careful where you place implicit faith. ” One suspects they those men were not deeply flawed” Rome= man’s not so bad and God’s not so mad. all men are deeply flawed, thats why Christ had to come and do for us what we could not do. He suffered the penalty of our law breaking and declared use righteous. ” There are none righteous, none who understands, none who seeks for God” Every person who ever live besides Christ was morally bankrupt. We are all called saints. Go read the opening to 1 corinthians by Paul. He calls that rag tag group saints and sanctified past tense, because those who trust in Christ alone receive His righteousness. There is no level of saint.” righteous for having responded to grace.” It called the “fee gift of righteousness ” in Romans 5:17 and the ” free gift of eternal life” in 6:23. If God gave grace in RESPONSE to an action or ability it would be a reward and not a gift. Welcome to your religion. Romans 11:6, grace is no longer grace. ” His gift is really good news for a sinner in need of salvation” Ya I agree. But its Protestantism that assures one of salvation, and stresses the finished work of Christ on the cross. And that work is finished Hebrews 10:14, it was done once and it perfected those who believe Hebrews 14 says. Go read it. 9:26 says He put sin away and the next time He appears it won’t be in regard to sin but to gather His people. You went from good news to bad news where you can never know your saved, the threat of a mortal sin throwing you out again. Purgatory for 1000 years isn’t good news. Romans 5:1, 9 tell a believer that having been justified, having been reconciled thru faith and His blood. He didn’t come to make salvation possible based on our actions, He saved us by faith alone. Read Romans 3:26. You are in a church that says that grace is a reward for your merits and good works. Justification in scripture is ALWAYS past tense, something that the Christian looks back on with peace. In rome its on the installment plan based on your actions, and sadly Paul is clear in Galatians 1:9 that gospel won’t get you there. And finally I don’t judge others, I only judge doctrine, God is the judge.

  131. FAITH July 22, 2014 at 6:35 am
    Donald said ” Luther revolted from the church, how could that be salvation” We are saved by faith alone in the Word, not faith in a church. The church isn’t the Word. The church can’t save you only the Word. Be careful where you place implicit faith. ”

    If you are going to quote something it is best to quote it accurately. “You are saved by grace through faith.” That reads a bit differently than what you wrote.

    The Word of God founded a Church and gave it His authority. He, the Word of God, is the Head of the Church He founded. It is His Body. Why would He chose to do it this way? That is a very good question and worthy of its own thread. Perhaps the owner of this site will pursue that question.

    I do know that He did what He did for our benefit. I do know that He operates through His Church. I do know that He uses His priests to confect the only acceptable Sacrifice, the Passover Meal of the New Covenant. I do know that He uses His priests to bring the forgiveness of sins to those who ask. I do know that this Church defined the scriptures. I do know that this Church defined the triune nature of God. I do know that this Church defined the divine humanity of Jesus. I do know that this Church defined orthodoxy in the face of heterodox positions. I do know that this Church has tried to bring back our separated brothers and sisters.

    Now is Jesus limited to or by His Church? Nope. Not at all. He can do whatever good He wants whenever He wants to do it; and not surprisingly His Church recognizes it as good.

    But I am limited. It is my place to adhere to the pillar and ground of faith, the Church He founded. I am called to obedience. I am called to submit to what He has provided for the human race out of His goodness. My unaided human reason is insufficient to do what needs to be done. My reliance cannot be on me, or on my perception of what scripture means. It is that Yellow Pages under Church argument all over again, and I don’t for one minute believe that He would create the chaos displayed by the Yellow Pages under Church. He would not leave us bereft of any ability to recognize and understand the Truth. He would not leave us dependent on ourselves having gone to such a great effort to protect us from ourselves and from evil; yet he would not dehumanize us by denying reason or our free will, gifts He gave us at the time of our creation.

    So once again your argument is not with me. Your argument is with Him, with what He did, with what He intends for us. I am not fighting Him. I cannot bind Him.

    Is there any purpose in running this further? You are the visitor at a Catholic site and Catholic responses, no matter how cogent, are bouncing off of your armor. God is limited for you and for that I am sorry. I can assure you that nothing that you have written will induce me to leave.

  132. Kevin,

    Thanks for the effort but the Sacrament of Penance/ Reconciliation/Confession and various penitential works are not synonymous.

    Yes, we increase in justice at Mass but I don’t think we call that merit.

    Let me tell you what merit is;
    For years I worked for a family owned business. An old Lebanese guy and his son and three younger daughters had restaurant in Portland. Besides the family, the guy employed about a dozen of us non family members.

    Now, the kids, especially the eldest boy who was due to inherit the business, had to work even harder than us hirelings. Of course, they had more perks than we did, but they didn’t come without a price.

    We hirelings earned an hourly wage. ( And we waiters also merited tips ). We put in our time, did our jobs and left after our shift was over.

    The 4 kids also worked with us and for tax reasons, earned a wage too. But we hirelings always knew our place. The kids didn’t earn like we did. They merited. The old man owned them and gave them not only their livelihoods but their very lives. Everything they had was a gift from him. He liked us hirelings but he loved his kids.

    The son got caught up with drugs. Eventually he was not only embezzling from his dad but swiping tips from the waiters. He had to go and was fired and never again was allowed back in the building. He was still the son but had fallen from grace. He lost his inheritance ( and eventually died in his early 30s).

    The old man died and the 3 girls had to hire a guy with management skills to do what the brother had done. The new guy worked hard, loved the family and knew the restaurant business. But he wasn’t family no matter how much he sucked up. He knew his wines, cooked well, and mixed well with the customers. However, he would sometimes get uppity and lord his position over us other hirelings. I would always have to remind him that he was no more Lebanese than the rest of us and was only a fellow hireling too. We had some nasty showdowns and I would always tell him I would still be there long after the girls had fired him. I was.
    Ever hear of congruous merit? I had known the family since the dead brother and I had gone to Catholic school together as little boys. My status was that of a friend and not just a hireling.

    Kevin, after all this time, you still don’t know how meriting a reward, an increase of inheritance by a son and working to earn a wage differ.

    You arrogantly tell us Catholics our doctrines when you don’t even know your own ordo salutis.

  133. Kevin,

    It’s not worth the effort to take time to write in my own words since it goes in one ear and out the other so I did a cut and paste for you on reward and merit. You’ll read it and will it not to make sense so you can continue to make the same old assertions you have been making for months despite being told what we believe.

    Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

    In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

    Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).
    The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

    Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.

    Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord admits: “We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term ‘reward.’ . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added” (p. 162).
    The following passages illustrate what the Church Fathers had to say on the relationship between merit and grace.

    Ignatius of Antioch
    “Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you” (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).

    Justin Martyr
    “We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man’s actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed” (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).

    Tatian the Syrian
    “[T]he wicked man is justly punished, having become depraved of himself; and the just man is worthy of praise for his honest deeds, since it was in his free choice that he did not transgress the will of God” (Address to the Greeks 7 [A.D. 170]).

    Athenagoras
    “And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the [goal] of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him Who Is, and of his decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For . . . the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each” (The Resurrection of the Dead 25 [A.D. 178]).

    Theophilus of Antioch
    “He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works [Rom. 2:7], he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man [1 Cor. 2:9]. For the unbelievers and the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity . . . there will be wrath and indignation [Rom. 2:8]” (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

    Irenaeus
    “[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care” (Against Heresies4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).

    Tertullian
    “Again, we [Christians] affirm that a judgment has been ordained by God according to the merits of every man” (To the Nations 19 [A.D. 195]).
    “In former times the Jews enjoyed much of God’s favor, when the fathers of their race were noted for their righteousness and faith. So it was that as a people they flourished greatly, and their kingdom attained to a lofty eminence; and so highly blessed were they, that for their instruction God spoke to them in special revelations, pointing out to them beforehand how they should merit his favor and avoid his displeasure” (Apology 21 [A.D. 197]).

  134. Kevin,

    Not that Donald needs my help schooling you but I gotta’ ask about this,

    “The church can’t save you only the Word.”

    By Word, do you mean Jesus? Jesus and His Church are one ( ask Saul/Paul ).

    Or, by “Word” do you mean the Bible? Could you give me a scripture reference saying the Church can’t save? Especially since the passages you go on and on about, ” You have been save by faith not of works…” all refer to being brought into the Church, the Ark of Salvation. Those “saved” passage you quote are not talking about final salvation at all. “Baptism saves you now” by getting a guy onto the Bark of Peter, the Church.

  135. CK,

    WOW! Kevin won’t benefit by the stuff from Trent and the fathers but I sure did. Especially from what Ignatius said.

  136. This is the whole chapter (even more disturbing to Kevin)

    Chapter 6. The duties of the Christian flock
    Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please Him under whom you fight, and from whom you receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you. May I have joy of you for ever!

  137. Donald, ” Therefore having been justified BY faith! Is Romans 5:1 in your bible. ” He the Word of God is the head of the church.” Ya, but unfortunately Rome has collapsed the head into the body and says the church is the provider of grace instead of the recipient. Unfortunately, it is the Spirit that brings the Word to the heart and His victory spoils, not the church. The church can lead us to Christ but it is God who has control of the conscience, and the Spirit who brings fiducia too the heart which justifies us now. Rome has substituted itself for the spirit and the Christ by collapsing the head into the body. ” i do know that he operates thru the church. Listen God does not dwell in buildings anymore, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit operates in His church which is all the saints, not a home office. ” But I am limited. It is my place to adhere to the pillar and ground of faith, the church” If the pillar and ground of your faith is the church 9( Rome) you are in serious trouble. Read 1 John 2:27. The pilar and ground of your faith should be only the Word. Again a church can’t save you. Especially one which has no foundation in Scripture. The only place where you will find Priests administering an imperfect sacrificial system like Rome is in the OT and that couldn’t save anyone. The word Priest ( heirus) is mentioned 400 times in the OT and never appears in the NT, NEVER. Yet your whole system is administered by a Priest. Hebrews says that there is one high Priest and His altar is in heaven, not on earth. In fact the writer of Hebrews says that the need for an earthly altar and sacrifice is shrinking back in one’s faith. The veil has been ripped away and we present our prayers and sacrifices at the altar in heaven. We adore Him thru the Spirit, in heaven where He is, not on an earthly alar. ” My human reason is sufficient……” Paul said in 1 Corinthians no man can come to the truth of the Gospel thru human wisdom. Reason apart from the Spirit and the Word is dead in sins. Donald don’t believe what Rome tells you. Unity without the right gospel means nothing. And chaos with the right gospel is the church. The church isn’t perfect, its made up of sinners. The head is perfect. ” He would not leave us dependent on ourselves.” He didn’t, those who trust in Christ alone, have the Spirit of Christ. It is a person that is offered,not a soul substance. We have Christ living in us, we are the temple of God, we are not alone. again I direct you to 1 John 2:27. A church can’t do this for you. I go to my church to be a part of the community go believers and listen to my Pastor, receive communion, but in the end we have a Spirit of power and truth in our hearts. Christ himself. No there is no reason for you and I to go further. Don’t buy the Roman fallacy that God is limited for us, and you have fuller communion. We worship at the altar in heaven thru the Spirit we are seated in the heavenly place, sealed in the Spirit, saved, reconciled, redeemed, justified, the veil be ripped away we have peace and true koininia with Him. You are at an earthly alar, He is still on the cross, and you are helping Him finish His incarnation thru the acts of the church, and you have to wait to the end to see if you made it. Who is limited? Hebrews says to true believers that when He comes a second time it won’t be in reference to sin, but to gather His own. No Purgatory for us, just glory. Hop on the mercy train, there is lots of saved sinners like me on there and we are headed to Zion.

  138. +JMJ+

    Robert wrote:

    Wosbald wrote:
    .
    Works of Law can’t save, no matter how spotless is one’s record. How much more perspicuous does Paul have to be? 😉
    .
    Fulfilling the Law: saves.
    .
    Spotless Law-Keeping: can’t save.

    Ignores everything Paul says about sin and its effect on human beings, and it makes the law into something inherently defective, which is exactly what Paul says it is not. Further, Paul tells the Judaizers in Galatians that if they are going to attempt to be saved by doing the works of the law, they have to keep it perfectly. Perfect keeping of the law is necessary for salvation, we just can’t do it.

    Perhaps rather, it’s the Reformed who are interpolating into Paul a doctrinal implication about Prelapsarian Man’s independence of Grace in regard to the Divine.

    Spotless Law-Keeping might be enough to be Not-Cursed. But it’s only the Reformed (along with Pelagians, Baianists, and Jansenists) who believe that being Not-Cursed suffices for a creature to attain to God without the need of Grace. Is there some specific chapter and verse that is put forward in support of this teaching? Or is it simply a philosophical interpretation of what Not-Cursed Adam’s being “created good” means?

  139. Kelvin,

    Below are are list of things that a person once baptized into a state of grace , can do to merit.

    To feed the hungry;
    To give drink to the thirsty;
    To clothe the naked;
    To harbour the harbourless;
    To visit the sick;
    To ransom the captive;
    To bury the dead.
    The spiritual works of mercy are:

    To instruct the ignorant;
    To counsel the doubtful;
    To admonish sinners;
    To bear wrongs patiently;
    To forgive offences willingly;
    To comfort the afflicted;
    To pray for the living and the dead.

    To instruct the ignorant is what I am doing with you right now and I am meriting big time for my efforts.

  140. Kevin,

    Seriously, put some spaces in your responses. I don’t know if you are ranting, but it looks like you are so I pass over your comments as I’m sure many others do.

    Just trying to be helpful.

  141. Ck, Romans 6:23 ” For the wages of sin is death but the FREE gift of God is eternal life thru Jesus christ our Lord.” Here is what Trent says ” To the one who works well to the end salvation is to be offered, not only as a gift, but as a reward to their merits and good works.” Here is what you said” Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking Catholics must do good works to come to God to be saved” No Protestants understand just fine, you don’t merit your initiation into grace but you better darn well know you merit your continuance of it. Read canon 24 Trent.This violates the gospel which says all of salvation is a free gift. When Paul writes Romans 11:6 he isn’t talking about the first installment. He eliminates all works as being meritorious in salvation. Grace in Rome is the means of exchange on the churche’s merit system. Clement of Rome, your Bishop ” and we too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our wisdom or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but BY faith thru which, from the beginning, Almighty God justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen” Much has changed in Rome CK.

  142. Kevin,

    And learn to use an apostrophe. “Your” does not mean “You’re.”

    Anyway, did you mean to deny that the Church is pillar and foundation of truth?

  143. CK, I apologize, I am seriously keyboard challenged. Incidentally I promised Jason i would cut down o my posts. i had allot of responding today. But Jason and the gang, I’m keeping them happy.

  144. Kevin,

    “When Paul writes Romans 11:6 he isn’t talking about the first installment. He eliminates all works as being meritorious in salvation. ”

    Paul must be schizoid because in Rm 2:7 he says “eternal life to those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality”.

  145. Jim, I have to laugh at myself everyday, I always mean to put the apostrophe there, but I forget. Can you understand my dialect. I’m a run-on poet. a real Longfellow. I couldn’t get very gift Jim. God gave me looks, personality, and humility, but no patience with the keyboard. My wife call me her philanthropy project. ha! ha! Jim I apologize ten times before I leave the house in the morning, and thats just to the dog. I’ll be out til later. Trying to control my posts.

  146. CK–

    Thanks a bunch for the quotes from the ECF’s.

    Unfortunately for your side, I, and every other Calvinist, agree wholeheartedly with every last one of these citations.

  147. Kevin,

    WOW! Sure glad we have more than one verse to turn to.

    Revelation 22:12
    Verse Concepts
    “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

    Matthew 5:12

    “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great;

    Philippians 3:14

    I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus

    Matthew 16:27

    “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS

    1 Corinthians 3:8

    Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

    2 Corinthians 9:6
    Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.

    Luke 6:22-23
    “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. “Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets

  148. Kevin–

    Please be careful around sensitive Catholics. Carelessly omitting an apostrophe is probably tantamount to blasphemy (you offensive pig, you).

    It does make a major difference upon occasion. There is a wide divide between the meanings of the following two expressions:

    1. You certainly do know your sh#t! (Evidently, you’re pretty knowledgeable.)

    2. You certainly do know you’re sh#t. (Evidently, you have a serious self-esteem problem.)

    😉

  149. Ditto for biblical citations. All fully compatible with Calvinism (which is what one would expect anyway…we don’t have the luxury of fudging Scripture through an appeal to “sacred” tradition).

    It would really help if even a couple of you guys would learn the rudimentary essentials of Reformed thought.

  150. Eric, Hilarious, maybe I need an apostrophe every once in awhile like #2.

  151. Eric,

    “It would really help if even a couple of you guys would learn the rudimentary essentials of Reformed thought.”

    Okay. That’s easy. God made men for hell. How did I do?

  152. Eric,

    Who is an offensive pig?

  153. Eric,

    You agree with Ignatius when he wrote…” Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you”

    Yet you don’t agree with the Catholic’s vew of merit & rewards. How do you interpret Ignatius quote?

  154. Eric,

    You were 86ed from Called to Communion for calling Cardinal Newman a twit.

    On this blog you referred to Fr. Wm. Most as a knucklehead. If I am the one you are calling a pig, I take it as a compliment to be slurred alongside those two men by you.

  155. Eric,

    Good one with the you/you’re comment.

    Made me laugh.

  156. Jim, said” by Word do you mean Jesus?” Was there another Word. “Jesus and His church are one” Jesus is the head of His church, and we are the church. In Rome, they collapse the body into the head and the church becomes the historical body of Christ. But He is exalted above all heaven and earth and left us with the Spirit. Instead of a group of individual believers with different gifts to accomplish His purpose, the many get soaked up into the one Totus Christus, so everything is fused, the church, the Eucharist, the believer on an ontological virtue climb to deification. This however smashes the descending, ascension, Parousia. All this was a result of philosophical influence that changed the primary purpose of the incarnation which is Redemption, to ontological salvation which is about elevating nature outside of itself and trafficking in the divine. Glorification is supposed to be becoming truly human, all that god intended us to be in Holiness and righteousness. All He became to us, we will become.

  157. Jim, said okay God made men for hell, how did I do.” You forgot the other half. He predestines others for heaven. There you go. Though the twins were not born, and had yet done anything bad or good, but according to His purpose and His choice. Who is Jim to say to the potter, why did you make me this way? Psalms says, the wicked have been created for the day of destruction. He is just to throw us all into hell because our sins are to many to number. The fact that he has mercy on a few Mathew 7, praise God!

  158. Eric,

    What about those rudimentary essentials of Reformed thought you mentioned?

    Maybe I offended you with my flippancy.

    Let me try again.

    Essential #1. God needs man to show love and justice ( Divine Life Ad Intra of the Trinity is insufficient for this ).

    Essential#2. Minor tweeking required depending on if one is Supra or Infralapsarian. Either way, God choose some men for heaven and “passes over” others when He just as easily could have saved all. ( A great and awesome mystery indeed).

    Essential #3. Jesus needed only to make official above decree. Comes and has Father’s wrath poured out on Him. ( Totally destroys the doctrine of the Trinity but is a great mystery hidden to the unregenerate reprobates. )

    Essential#4. Chosen elect mentioned above robotized through “regeneration” in order to grasp with the empty hand of Faith that unnecessary Jesus ( already elect/never really lost ) that came for those sheep (and to hell with the rest).

    Essential#4. Sovereign God is glorified by this ghoulish tale.

    How’s that. Any better?

  159. Kevin,

    ” the many get soaked up into the one Totus Christus, so everything is fused, the church, the Eucharist, the believer on an ontological virtue climb to deification. This however smashes the descending, ascension, Parousia. All this was a result of philosophical influence that changed the primary purpose of the incarnation which is Redemption, to ontological salvation which is about elevating ”

    How is it a fellow who doesn’t know what an apostrophe is knows what “ontological” means.

  160. Kevin,

    Your Potter’s clay/Jacob I loved, Esau I hated stuff is cleared up in Malachi.

    Esau was not chosen for hell. If that is the god you love, who needs enemies?

  161. I calls’em as I sees’em…and let the chips fall where they may. Most and Newman deserve such epithets, as do James White and Darryl Hart and the like…and me myself fairly often, as well. You deserve worse, so I’m leaving you unnamed for the moment. You owe me, or at least civil society in general, several dozen apologies. I’ll not be holding my breath, however.

    I did not refer to you as swine. That was my quoting one of your favorite insults toward those who don’t hold to your high standards of idolatry and other sacrosanct nonsense. Somehow you don’t understand that in ecumenical dialogue we will upon occasion tip your sleeping sacred cows, and you will tip ours.

    By the way, you do indeed complement (with an “e”) the aforementioned gents.

  162. Catholicism itself believes God made all men who end up in hell. He must have a purpose in that, so, yes, God made certain men FOR hell. Your blessed Magisterium would say no less.

  163. @Kevin:

    I have been nice and respectful to you.

    You’ve never been nice or respectful to any Catholic in my entire experience of your participation on any blog. I have no problem with that, necessarily, and contrary to Jim’s opinion, that wasn’t the basis for your previous eviction (see Bob’s reference to “an automated electronic response mechanism in endless loop” for the actual reason)..

    As to the most recent examples, Jim is right that baptism isn’t (and can’t be) merited. Likewise, you mentioned canon 24 of Trent, which states:
    Canon 24.
    If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

    There’s not one word in there about merit. Yet you say it means we can merit the ongoing grace of justification, even though Augustine and a long line of Catholic commentators on the subject say the opposite.

    And, as he pointed out, you’re just flat out lying about what Catholics believe on the Crucifixion, having been told by both Donald and Jim to knock off the nonsense. And you misrepresented St. Clement of Rome’s teaching as well.

    What part of Scripture says “lie about your enemies and persecute them?” Who does Scripture call the father of lies? If you have the truth, you shouldn’t need to lie over and over again, and yet you keep doing it. Try looking in your heart and discerning the spirit that is compelling you to keep coming here over and over again to spread lies. I can guarantee you that it isn’t the Holy Spirit, and don’t rest on the fact that this spirit quotes Scripture to you, because the father of lies misquotes Scripture too.

    Like Jim, my instinct when I see that it to root it out, to tear out the weeds. But that desire comes from the enemy too. You’re just the victim here, so maybe we should focus on how long this spirit you’re following has been tormenting you. Debbie seems to say that something happened at some point where this spirit’s influence may have begun. How can we help you fight it?

  164. Your grammar is almost as bad as Kevin’s. Your tongue-in-cheek essentials probably aren’t that far off from the caricature you actually follow.

  165. Kevin–I give up. You’re not actually dealing with what I’m saying, and probably never will. Having been effectively brainwashed into Calvinism, you may not be capable of it.

    And you’re apparently unaware that I’m Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic–a fact I mentioned fact in my first or second post in this thread but you must have missed it. Whichever one I am, though, you probably regard me as unsaved. Well, fortunately Christ will judge me, not a raving cultist.

    (Putting on a Reformed hat for a moment.) The way you carry on, I don’t think you’re elect. Instead, it’s clear that you’re a “false brother” who has been deceived and will end up in hell as a reprobate. Good luck! (Taking off that Calvinist hat.)*

    *NB: This paragraph is for rhetorical effect. Now you can know what the rest of us have to put up with.

  166. PS: Correction to my previous post–“a fact I mentioned in my first or second post in this thread”.

  167. Eric,

    “I did not refer to you as swine. That was my quoting one of your favorite insults toward those who don’t hold to your high standards of idolatry and other sacrosanct nonsense. Somehow you don’t understand that in ecumenical dialogue we will upon occasion tip your sleeping sacred cows, and you will tip ours.”

    Ecumenical dialogue? The Eucharist and Mary are not “sacred cows” or “sacrosanct nonsense”. That is the language of little fellows hunkered down safely on the other side of cyberspace talking tough through their keyboards. Go over to your local Catholic church this Sunday and say it to the “idolaters” as they exit the church. After picking up you teeth, get back to us and tell us how it worked out for you.

  168. Jonathan–

    And just what part of charity permits you incessantly to launch your dubious, pseudo-academic, vendetta-esque attacks on Calvin? Take the time to get to know Kevin a tad. I have. He has a genuinely sweet spirit. He simply, vehemently disapproves of your and your colleagues’ theological choices. Can anyone honestly say the same about Jim’s meanspiritedness? Personally, I see few if any redeeming character traits. I’ll be quite willing to take another look. But he, in my opinion, is the hands-down bullying champion on this site. And no Catholic has yet to ask him to stand down.

    Hopefully, of course, Kevin will learn his lesson concerning automated responses in an endless loop.

  169. Eric–you wrote, “Your tongue-in-cheek essentials probably aren’t that far off from the caricature you actually follow.”

    For the lurkers and commenters who are not-quite-amateur theologians: please correctly explain the “essentials” of Calvinism, in contradistinction to the “caricature” presented by Jim. No dialogue can go on when misconceptions are being held to.

  170. Justification by faith alone.

    Define faith. Saving faith is faith with good works. Dead faith is faith without good works, James chapter 2.

    If justification is essential to salvation and justification is attained through faith, then it must be attained by saving faith and not dead faith.

    Ergo, I am justified by saving faith alone. This is how “FAITH” “WORKS”.

    Simple but effective.

    Define meritorious works. Works that merit reward and done in faithful intent with full consent of the will.
    There are works that merit heavenly rewards:
    Matthew 5:6 “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

    And those that don’t:
    Matthew 6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”

    And following in Matthew 6 Jesus gives examples of each. Those with heavenly rewards, and those with only earthly rewards. Jesus says also in Matthew 6:19-ff “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

    If you think you are justified, what good is your faith if you don’t practice it? God searches your heart. Where will your treasures be?

    “What ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

  171. Eric,

    I forgot one o’ them Essentials.

    #7. God gives commandment to men. Opts not to give the grace needed to keep those commandments. Then “justly” punishes those same men for their failure.

    Is that too tongue-in-cheek for you? Tell me what I am leaving out of the rudimentary essentials you think only erudite Oxford dons like yourself can understand.

    Eric, there is nothing deep or mysterious about Calvinism. You guys always accuse your critics of not understanding what you find so profound.
    The trouble for you is, we do understand. We just don’t find it as awe-inspiring as you do.

  172. Eric,

    ” pseudo-academic, vendetta-esque”.

    Man, I love that kind of talk!

    Reminds me of when you thought you had to tell us hayseeds that absinthe was a French liqueur.

  173. You only and ever see your side of things. Hypothetically go to a PCA service this Sunday (I say “hypothetically” because I’m not sure that they have much of a presence in Portugal) and start badmouthing JBFA as the congregants exit. Expound on your version of Jesus who will not accept us by unassisted grace alone. Warn them that they must venerate the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, the Mediatrix of all Graces….

    You freaking blaspheme our view of God every bit as much as we blaspheme yours. Get off your higher-than-thou horse, and you’ll keep your oh-I’m-so-offended trap shut!

  174. Bob,

    Hello again. You said,

    “Define faith. Saving faith is faith with good works. Dead faith is faith without good works, James chapter 2.”

    Pretty good but I think that that neither faith nor good works avail much unless vivified by love. Faith working in Love as Paul said. He said if he had faith to move mountains and gave all his goods to the poor but lacked Charity, it was all for nothing.
    Where do we get this love? The Holt Spirit pours it into our hearts.

  175. Eric,

    I love it when you talk dirty to me!

  176. Eric,

    Okay. I am not taking you seriously. Let me show you the respect you deserve.
    You have a legitimate point, but only to a point.

    I know you have been on Kauffman’s site. Don’t deny it. Does this site, owned by a guy who had to endure a lot of grief to become a Catholic, have to be like that site for you to be satisfied?
    There is no site anywhere that doesn’t have a sort of default position. This one happens to be Catholic.

    You mentioned, “…venerate the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, the Mediatrix of all Graces….”.

    Yeah Eric, the default position on a Catholic owned blog had better lean toward these doctrines and have zero tolerance for their mockery. Why can’t you grasp that? If you find that unreasonable, go back to Kauffman’s and stay there with the other “sweet fellow” and you can blaspheme all you want.

  177. Eric,

    You called me a pig. I can shake that off.

    But I cannot, Debbie cannot, Ck cannot, Nick cannot, Jason cannot, Donald cannot, accept the Eucharist being mocked or Mary’s Virginity snickered at. It is not a case of turning the other cheek. We have an obligation to rend our garments at this and cry out.

    You don’t have to violate your conscience by accepting these doctrines to post here. Nobody is asking you to. All I have ever asked, demanded, railed against, and will do so until I am removed from this blog is that these doctrines not be spat upon.

  178. Testing

    Testing

  179. Wosbald,

    Perhaps rather, it’s the Reformed who are interpolating into Paul a doctrinal implication about Prelapsarian Man’s independence of Grace in regard to the Divine.

    Except that the Reformed don’t deny grace in the prelapsarian state. What we deny is that there is additional grace that had to be added to keep spirit and body in harmony. Like the rest of the Bible, we’re not dualists.

    Spotless Law-Keeping might be enough to be Not-Cursed. But it’s only the Reformed (along with Pelagians, Baianists, and Jansenists) who believe that being Not-Cursed suffices for a creature to attain to God without the need of Grace.

    Any ability that prelapsarian man had was a gift of grace, so I don’t know what you are talking about attaining to God without grace.

    Is there some specific chapter and verse that is put forward in support of this teaching? Or is it simply a philosophical interpretation of what Not-Cursed Adam’s being “created good” means?

    It’s more what Genesis 1 doesn’t say. Where does it say Adam had an extra infusion of grace beyond what was given to him in his original creation? The closest I’ve gotten to an answer is Jonathan’s statement that to walk with God in the garden required extra grace beyond what Adam was granted simply by being created in God’s image. That’s a philosophical leap introduced to justify a sacramental system that Moses, who wrote the passage, never would have known, not to mention Jesus, Paul, and everyone else.

  180. Mikel,
    Get in here man. We need your help.

  181. Eric:
    Take the time to get to know Kevin a tad. I have. He has a genuinely sweet spirit. He simply, vehemently disapproves of your and your colleagues’ theological choices. Can anyone honestly say the same about Jim’s meanspiritedness? Personally, I see few if any redeeming character traits.

    Me:
    Was this statement conjured up in a drunken state? Kevin has a sweet spirit? What spirit may that be? The alcoholic variety?

    My friend if you are clueless as regards what to say wouldn’t it be better if you spent your time whistling? I have absolute certitude whistling will profit you more.

    Kevin is nut job. The only issue that still astound me is that people here take him serious enough to even engage him. Like I said at the start of this post he should be quarantined for the health of everyone here.

  182. Robert,

    “Where does it say Adam had an extra infusion of grace beyond what was given to him in his original creation? The closest I’ve gotten to an answer is Jonathan’s statement that to walk with God in the garden required extra grace beyond what Adam was gran…”

    When God breathed Adam’s soul into him, it was a soul full of God’s own ‘ruah” or Spirit. Adam walked with God in the evening as a friend. Friends are equal or share something in common. Grace deified Adam.
    The tree of life made Adam immortal.
    The fact that Adam was created as an adult, having no parents to teach him, could name the animals paraded before him shows he knew their nature via infused knowledge,
    The Fact he and Eve we naked and fell no shame shows they have the preternatural gift of integrity. Their lower animal appetites were under control of their higher faculties.

    None of these things belonged to Adam’s human nature. Remember, he was a chimera, half ape, half angel Angels and apes are both good. They just don’t naturally harmonize.

  183. @Robert:

    Except that the Reformed don’t deny grace in the prelapsarian state. What we deny is that there is additional grace that had to be added to keep spirit and body in harmony. Like the rest of the Bible, we’re not dualists.

    That disharmony is only true when that human being is situated in the fallen world. Your attempt to try to saddle us with the belief that creation was initially designed to be evil is specious.

    Any ability that prelapsarian man had was a gift of grace, so I don’t know what you are talking about attaining to God without grace.

    If that is true, then since post-fall man has the same nature, and since nature itself is grace, then man should be able to save himself by the exertion of natural powers. In other words, you’re a Pelagian.

    The closest I’ve gotten to an answer is Jonathan’s statement that to walk with God in the garden required extra grace beyond what Adam was granted simply by being created in God’s image. That’s a philosophical leap introduced to justify a sacramental system that Moses, who wrote the passage, never would have known, not to mention Jesus, Paul, and everyone else.

    So it is a philosophical leap to say that Adam could not command God to appear in the Garden by exertion of his natural powers? I’d like to see what philosophy justifies that claim!

  184. JIM–
    [Pretty good but I think that that neither faith nor good works avail much unless vivified by love.]

    Yeah ok. James didn’t mention love in that context so I didn’t add it, but yeah, love is essential.

    [ Where do we get this love? The Holt Spirit pours it into our hearts.]

    I’m not sure who Holt is. Is he in the Old Testament? One of your “deuterocanonical” books? I can’t find him in my concordance. Mine only references the Protestant bible.

  185. Mr. Eric,

    I have been watching you starting to trash talk here. What are you still doing here? You made this statement didn’t you?

    “I’ll return to this blog when I see groveling apologies from you two or when I see that you have been summarily dismissed by our absentee landlord”

    The two referenced above are still here and I still don’t know the meaning of “groveling”. So is this like a further demonstration of confused spinelessness or what?

    You know what? You are starting to lose your limpness in my estimation. You are beginning to appear as an attractive, freshly painted bullseye.

    And I faintly remember you insulting a married woman on this blog.

    Ehmmm. Actually I think you will make a very good big game animal.

    Mr. Election to Heaven. Delusion of the first differential order

  186. JIM–
    [None of these things belonged to Adam’s human nature. Remember, he was a chimera, half ape, half angel Angels and apes are both good. They just don’t naturally harmonize.]

    Where in the world did you come up with that? Adam was a chimera? Half ape? Half angel?
    Man! You need to quit reading your “deuterocanonicals”.

  187. Jonathan, ” you have never been respectful to any Catholic on this blog since my participation here.” You haven’t been nice to John Calvin and the Reformers since my participation on this blog.” This is big boy stuff. We are playing for keeps. Its not personal. Canon 24 is the antithesis to the Gospel. We don’t increase justice thru our works and good works are the fruits of justification. Romans 1:16 ” For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of GOD for salvation to everyone who believes.” not the power of me unto salvation, the security of my salvation does not rest on the power of man or a church, but on God himself. I won’t ever fall away by my own devices or of any man or devil. ” you are lying on what Catholics believe on the crucifixion and your position on Clement is wrong” The Scripture says Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. This is what Roman apologist do. They act like what their doctrine is saying isn’t really what its saying. Why don’t you tell me how Clements statement really supports the Catholic position. I can’t wait for that. And I assume you don’t like me saying that Christ isn’t Lord and Savior in Rome, that you still have Him on the cross. He is risen! in victory over sin and redeemed His people and according to Romans 5:1’9 reconciled and justified us past tense by His blood and faith. Thats the Good News, its finished. The gospel isn’t God will help us achieve His favor with His help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. ” Try looking into your heart and discern the spirit that is compelling you to come here over and over again spewing lies. I can guarantee you its not the Holy Spirit.” How do you know you have the Holy Spirit. Don’t quench the Spirit of Jonathan. This coming from a guy who said he is a Christian Physicist. Is that like being a Christian baseball player, or does that mean this gives you the edge on understanding Scripture? Go read 1 John 2:27, a scripture that does not go over well in the RC. It says we have the anointing of the Spirit and have no need for anyone to teach, and it is true and not a lie. It does not mean that we don’t listen to our teachers but in the end we have the Spirit of Christ, Christ himself in our heart since it is a person that is offered and not a soul substance, and He teaches us all things. Debbie was my wife’s best friend who after I confronted her in love with the gospel, prayed 5 2000 year old exorcism prayers over me and told me not t defile her worship. The true gospel does funny things to people, like expose them for who they really are, especially when you hit their sacred cows. Now Jonathan you were candid with me and I was candid with you. You made allot of accusations and I am simply answering, don’t go and kick me off. If you showed up at my house I would smoke a cigar with you and feed you my best Pasta. Its not personal. K

  188. Catholics,

    If any of you disagree with my position or think I am being a bit unreasonable,
    take it up with Jimmy Akin.http://jimmyakin.com/2008/07/p-z-myers-must.html

    Remember a few years back when Princeton professor P.Z. Meyers desecrated a Host on utube? Catholic Answers lead the charge to have him fired.

    No blog, Catholic or Protestant should be what Eric wants this one to be.

    Call Fr. Vincent Serpa on Wednesday’s show on Catholic Answers. Bring it up with your confessor. Don’t take my word for it. ( Although I can’t fathom anyone who receives Holy Communion at Mass needing to be told this. I can’t even fathom any decent Protestant not understanding. )

    Amen.

  189. Jonathan,

    That disharmony is only true when that human being is situated in the fallen world. Your attempt to try to saddle us with the belief that creation was initially designed to be evil is specious.

    If that is so, then there would be no need for infused grace before the fall. Or are you saying that Adam had the “natural” ability to not sin?

    If that is true, then since post-fall man has the same nature, and since nature itself is grace, then man should be able to save himself by the exertion of natural powers. In other words, you’re a Pelagian.

    Contra Pelagius—and Rome—man’s nature post-fall is dead to the things of God.

    So it is a philosophical leap to say that Adam could not command God to appear in the Garden by exertion of his natural powers? I’d like to see what philosophy justifies that claim!

    Who said anything about Adam “commanding” God to do anything by nature or by grace? But if you want to believe Adam commanded God by grace, go ahead.

    What I’m saying is that Adam didn’t need an extra infusion of anything to have fellowship with God, and the only reason why anyone would believe that is if one is a radical spirit-matter dualist. Where does Genesis speak of an infusion of grace? It doesn’t. It is a imposition foreign to the biblical writers in order to justify sacerdotalism.

  190. Bob,

    I was using hyperbole to explain our unique place in the animal kingdom.

    We are cousins to the gorilla. Yet we have a rational, spiritual soul. Do you disagree? Our ape-ness craves copulating with all the she-apes. But unlike our cousins at the zoo, we know better. Are you with me Bob?

  191. Jonathan,

    Kevin put out an olive branch with,

    ” If you showed up at my house I would smoke a cigar with you and feed you my best Pasta.”

    He had me drop my guard on Kauffman’s with that same pasta dish ( He offered me tuna with mine ).

    Then he and Kauffman had sport with me by called me a “bread worshiper of the death wafer”.

    He will use that olive branch as a club if you get to close. Open a can of Chef Boyardee ravioi instead.

  192. Mikel, “Kevin is a nut job” Let me get this right Mikel is lecturing on what it means to be nuts. Wow! She is back from the third world with her Spear throwing it wildly. How you are able to say these things here and get away with it is amazing.

  193. Mikel, I hope that the guys who run this blog see how you come on here and subtly threaten Eric and Robert with the whole painting a bullseye on them and hunting and Eric as an animal. There is no place for that stuff here.

  194. Robert,

    “Where does Genesis speak of an infusion of grace?”

    Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    That breath of life or animating principle was a soul infused with grace.
    After the fall, no soul is created in grace. ( Jesus excepted. And Mary too if I may be so bold as to say so on a Catholic blog without offending Protestants who freely opt to post here ).

  195. Jim, your so offended by” bread worshiper and death wafer” that you bring the words up. What hypocrisy. If these are the N word then don’t use it.

  196. Kevin,

    Third world spear thrower? There was a time your people were called dagos, wops, organ grinders. Have some respect and stop the racist slurs.

    Sweet guy, indeed!

  197. Kevin.

    “Jim, your so offended by” bread worshiper and death wafer” that you bring the words up. What hypocrisy. If these are the N word then don’t use it.”

    I am not going to dignify this with a comment.

  198. JIM–
    [I was using hyperbole to explain our unique place in the animal kingdom. We are cousins to the gorilla. Yet we have a rational, spiritual soul. Do you disagree? Our ape-ness craves copulating with all the she-apes. But unlike our cousins at the zoo, we know better. Are you with me Bob?]

    Ok. Sure. You just made that up for illustration. Whew!! I thought maybe that was something from your Sacred Tradition that I had never heard of. Personally, I don’t think we are even cousins to the apes. I think the line of current humans were created unique with Adam and Eve. And if I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church does to. I could be wrong.

  199. Driving to work on certain occasion you get to hear that a corpse is lying on the way. Usually you hear this on the radio. The presence of the corpse always results in a gridlock because people tend to slow down to gawk at the corpse. I still can’t explain why that happens. It is very unsightly and unsettling but there appears to be a hypnotic pull to steal a peek which becomes a stare. Very disturbing.

    Kevin I find the same morbid, gory, macabre fascination with you. You are a mangled decomposing stinking corpse. That I just have to look at.

  200. Jonathan wrote to Kevin:
    Like Jim, my instinct when I see that it to root it out, to tear out the weeds. But that desire comes from the enemy too. You’re just the victim here, so maybe we should focus on how long this spirit you’re following has been tormenting you. Debbie seems to say that something happened at some point where this spirit’s influence may have begun. How can we help you fight it?

    Response:
    I will presume to speak for Kevin. Let’s grant this tormenting spirit. The first step in helping is to make sure this spirit doesn’t come from the Lord Jesus. No one wants to fight the Lord or Kevin’s progressive sanctification.

    …. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

  201. Mike Royko, Chicago Sun-Times columnist while I was growing up, referred to all of downstate Illinois as “rustics, bumpkins, hayseeds, hicks, hillbillies, and yahoos.” Coming from a long line of Iowan farmers and truckers myself, I see the term “hayseed” as a badge of honor, so don’t misuse it.

    Though technically not a liqueur, absinthe, along with other flavored spirits without added sugars, is generally referred to as one. It is Swiss in origin, but from the French section. I don’t remember if I called it a French liqueur, but if I did, there’s not much wrong in that. As far as I remember, I alluded to absinthe’s legendary addictive and hallucinogenic properties. Thujone, a component of most absinthes, was long thought to be a convulsant (which it is in large quantities), and, as a result, absinthe was banned in a good number of countries for much of the twentieth century. Thujone percentages are still legally limited in the U.S. and the E.U. it is hardly the hum-drum, run-of-the-mill drink you characterized it as, Mr. Erudite (self-proclaimed), our resident lush.

    Did you even graduate from high school? Just wondering.

  202. Kevin,

    Do you think Mikel is anywhere as grossly offensive as you and Kauffman?

    Kauffman never gets his hair mussed. Never loses his cool. Never breaks a sweat. Listen to Fulton Sheen’s talk on the difference between a bad man and an evil man. A bad man, steals, swears, fights. An evil man does none of those things. He is far worse. He disseminates evil literature to destroy souls.

    Mikel takes after Paul, Jerome or the Boanerges brothers. Your behavior brings out righteous indignation from any Confirmed Catholic.

    You amuse me. When I asked Kauffman to reign in your Death Wafer pus on his blog, you and he laughed at me. Now you have the audacity to ask for concessions on a Catholic blog?

  203. Eric,

    “Did you even graduate from high school? Just wondering.”

    Maybe I dropped out and got my G.E.D. in prison before going on to get my master’s.

    ( Ha! Now I am confusing myself with my younger brother ).

  204. Boys,

    Here in Europe, ( absinthe country ) it is the bewitching hour. I will check back in the morning and see if Mikel showed you any undeserved mercy for your racist slur.

  205. Bob,

    It’s a non-issue for me. Pius XII said we can believe either way. Ciao

  206. Jim,

    Actually I am one hour ahead of you. It is witches time here in the jungles of African. Zombies, werehyenas and other unnatural folks patrolling the night. Makes one appreciate the day, doesn’t it?

    Kevin/Eric/OC, you guys better never come this way. You might just find out am one of them.

  207. Racist slurs ? I remember an infallible council and the carnal Jew.

  208. Mikel–

    What can I say? Jimbo, or whatever his real name is, is my absinthe–my “rotting corpse,” as it were. I have decided instead to simply leave him unnamed until he apologizes. At any rate, you two are whack jobs who have no business questioning anybody else’s sanity.

    Tell your nameless cohort that we do not mock your Marian dogmas; we CONDEMN them. We do not mock your Eucharistic idolatry; we CONDEMN it. It is far too sad a practice to mock. Every single confessional Protestant condemns these thoroughly unbiblical beliefs. Kevin and I are not outliers. We are rank-and-file Protestants who–what d’ya know?–hold to Protestant beliefs. So sue us!

    I will no longer be using your name either. Figure it out if I am speaking to you. Or don’t. It really doesn’t matter to me. You both give Catholics a very bad name.

  209. Jim, You’re saying that Tim is an evil man. Debbie has said as much. And why, Has he ever treated the both of you with anything but love and respect? No he hasn’t. You say ” He disseminates evil literature to destroy souls” Or maybe he speaks the truth in love so God will save souls. Remember, Scripture teaches us Satan will make good look evil and evil look good. Thessalonians tell us that when the “man of perdition” appears and he is a religious man who puts himself up in the church as God. Many of the fathers were afraid that he would come from within the church and they would know it. The prudent Christian should be on the look out, no? Do you see any man that would fit that bill Jim? Are you on the look out for the man within the church who will fulfill that prophecy? We should be. ” The one who believes in the son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given concerning His Son , And this is the testimony that god has GIVEN us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who has the Son has the Life, and He who hath not the Son of God hath not the life. Jim, John says that God has given eternal life to those who believe in the Son of God and this is the Testimony. What would you say about a church that says God has not yet given you eternal life and you can’t have that assurance in this life? Would that be consistent with the Testimony?

  210. Jim, that should read the fathers wouldn’t know it.

  211. Eric, preach it brother Amen!

  212. @Robert:

    If that is so, then there would be no need for infused grace before the fall. Or are you saying that Adam had the “natural” ability to not sin?

    Infused grace has nothing to do with the ability to sin or not; people with infused grace (the justified) can still sin. The reason Adam needed grace wasn’t to avoid sin, although it did have this effect. It was to be in fellowship with God. Even being capable of avoiding sin, Adam still would have lacked this ability. The basis of justification never changed; it was by grace, not works, before the Fall, and it is by grace, not works, after the Fall.

    Contra Pelagius—and Rome—man’s nature post-fall is dead to the things of God.

    Man’s nature doesn’t change post-fall, only the condition of man’s nature does. Otherwise, we would cease to be human after the fall. So “fallen” has to do with our mode of possession of the nature, not what the nature itself is. In other words, Pelagianism isn’t really about the fall, which is the mode of possession, but about the capacity of human nature itself. It isn’t a question of the Law not being able to justify now, but of the Law never being able to justify, because of the limitations of nature. In other words, even perfect obedience to the Law, even Christ’s perfect obedience to the Law, doesn’t justify.

    Who said anything about Adam “commanding” God to do anything by nature or by grace? But if you want to believe Adam commanded God by grace, go ahead.

    I don’t say that Adam had the power to command God at all. That is what grace means. So unless Adam could command God to appear in the Garden, then God’s presence must have been by grace rather than anything in Adam’s nature, meaning that God’s presence was something given to Adam over and above Adam’s nature. Nor was it a covenant, as if God had somehow promised to show up when Adam called. It was a pure gift of grace.

    What I’m saying is that Adam didn’t need an extra infusion of anything to have fellowship with God, and the only reason why anyone would believe that is if one is a radical spirit-matter dualist.

    I’m not saying that he needed anything else to be in fellowship with God if God wanted to be in fellowship with Adam. All the Catholic view says is that Adam did not, by virtue of existing as a human being, automatically have the ability to compel God into fellowship by his obedience. The reason that Adam could be in fellowship with God is that God decided to be in fellowship with Him. In other words, fellowship with God is grace, not a reward for following a covenant of works.

    Where does Genesis speak of an infusion of grace? It doesn’t. It is a imposition foreign to the biblical writers in order to justify sacerdotalism.

    If Scripture speaks of any grace given to Adam in himself, then that grace is infused. Do you believe that the fellowship in the Garden was purely extrinsic and forensic, that Adam had no contact with God in his soul? Again, your problem is that you want fellowship with God to be something that Adam could access without the previous will of God to be in fellowship with him, and that is Pelagianism.

    This shouldn’t be all that hard. The concept of prelapsarian grace simply says that God, not Adam, controls His own presence. That doesn’t make Adam evil, just less than God.

  213. The wheels are officially off this wagon!

  214. @Kevin:

    Why don’t you tell me how Clements statement really supports the Catholic position. I can’t wait for that.

    I have. Multiple times. This is that infinite loop thing we talked about.

    The Council of Trent, like Pope Saint Clement confirm that works do not merit the grace of justification. Many Protestants misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches. As Trent decreed, the justified “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works,” to use the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James. Catholics do not earn the initial grace of justification
    http://taylormarshall.com/2009/09/did-clement-of-rome-teach-justification.html

    No, you made this crazy accusation that Roman apologists all lie. I’ve told you what the teaching is. Taylor Marshall told you what the teaching is. Did we conspire to lie to you? Obviously not. The fact that you are saying every Catholic must be lying reflects what the spirit of untruth is telling you, because that accusation isn’t true.

    I’m glad that exorcisms have been prayed over you, but if your heart is hardened, it won’t help. So soften your heart to the Word, and we can help.

  215. Nope, I’m sorry, but I’m not buying the whole G.E.D. claim. Maybe you read a book or two in prison, or, should I say, had them read to you….

    😉

  216. “Kauffman never gets his hair mussed. Never loses his cool. Never breaks a sweat. Listen to Fulton Sheen’s talk on the difference between a bad man and an evil man. A bad man, steals, swears, fights. An evil man does none of those things. He is far worse. He disseminates evil literature to destroy souls.”

    This is exactly how I would describe Bryan Cross. Is he an evil man, as well?

  217. By the way, I think I’ve only gone to Kauffman’s blog once, so I really don’t know much of anything concerning his demeanor.

  218. Jonathan, Of course what you mean when you say ” soften your heart to the Word, then we can help” Let me translate. Accept my interpretation of things. And I don’t remember asking for your help. Your the one who suggested help for me. Your M.O. is always Protestants misunderstand what the Catholic church teaches. The other alternative is they understand just fine and they don’t believe its the Gospel. We all use our fallible judgment “informed by the Spirit” to put our faith somewhere. You in the Roman church, us in the Word. ” You increase in the justice you received freely at baptism by your works. You do and God gives you grace. You do your level best and God gives you grace. Clement’s statement is a repudiation of faith including faithfulness in justification. How can one increase something ( justification,the person of Christ) thats perfect already and is given freely and fully thru faith? Unless its being given in installments based on something you do right? ” as a reward to their good works and merits.” You keep telling me you don’t earn the initial grace of justification. So what. You earn your continuance in it.” as a reward to THEIR MERITS and good works.” What are you Houdini doing the slight of hand. Romans 4:16 says that if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace,it will have to be all of faith. Not just initially.” Now you made this crazy accusation that Roman apologist lie.” Thats not what i said. I said they say their doctrine means the opposite of what it means. Your post just proved the point. We call it the irresistible urge to smuggle their character into God’s work of grace. I’ve read Taylor Marshall and don’t agree. Jonathan who is going to help you with the “tormenting spirit” of spiritual blindness and obtuseness. Will you let Eric and me and Robert, and Eric W, and John Calvin help you .How can we help you. Jonathan you are under some allusion that because you say it, we must accept as doctrine. It doesn’t work that way. People share their views and we must each decide. It doesn’t make someone evil.

  219. Jonathan,

    The basis of justification never changed; it was by grace, not works, before the Fall, and it is by grace, not works, after the Fall.

    If this were really true, there could be no talk of increasing justification or meriting heaven in any sense.

    It isn’t a question of the Law not being able to justify now, but of the Law never being able to justify, because of the limitations of nature. In other words, even perfect obedience to the Law, even Christ’s perfect obedience to the Law, doesn’t justify.

    Apparently Paul did not get the memo: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

    Neither did Jesus:

    If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

    Unless Adam could command God to appear in the Garden, then God’s presence must have been by grace rather than anything in Adam’s nature, meaning that God’s presence was something given to Adam over and above Adam’s nature. Nor was it a covenant, as if God had somehow promised to show up when Adam called. It was a pure gift of grace.

    The very act of creation itself is grace as is any covenant God establishes with people. Nothing compels him to do either. For God to show up at all is gracious it is true, but Adam didn’t need an extra infusion of grace to enjoy that presence.

    I’m not saying that he needed anything else to be in fellowship with God if God wanted to be in fellowship with Adam. All the Catholic view says is that Adam did not, by virtue of existing as a human being, automatically have the ability to compel God into fellowship by his obedience. The reason that Adam could be in fellowship with God is that God decided to be in fellowship with Him. In other words, fellowship with God is grace, not a reward for following a covenant of works.

    Adam didn’t compel anything by his obedience. God created Adam in fellowship with him and made obedience the condition of continuing to enjoy that fellowship. This is basic Christian theology, unless you want to tell me Adam was not under a probationary period. Continuing in fellowship was most certainly a reward, else nothing would have been lost in the fall. It is ridiculous to say otherwise when you make attaining heaven finally dependent upon maintaining oneself in a state of grace and justification.

    Obedience would have confirmed the state in which Adam existed, a state created by grace and enjoyed by grace. All Adam had to do was pass probation. This really shouldn’t be a problem except that you are dead-set on making Calvinists into Pelagians. What Steve Hays says to Perry Robinson about this applies just as well to your “argument”:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/02/pelagian-calvinism.html

    Do you believe that the fellowship in the Garden was purely extrinsic and forensic, that Adam had no contact with God in his soul?

    No. What I deny is that God had to infuse grace into Adam’s soul in order for that contact to take place. By virtue of being made in God’s image and likeness (synonyms referring to the same thing by the way), Adam was in fellowship with God from the point of creation. And he wasn’t some inherently unstable being with lower appetites inherently at war with reason either, with the result that sin is basically inevitable.

    God made Adam and gave him everything he needed for fellowship with him. God freely chose to do this, just as he chose to put Adam under probation. He didn’t make an unstable creature that by virtue of creation itself could not be in fellowship with God.

    Again, your problem is that you want fellowship with God to be something that Adam could access without the previous will of God to be in fellowship with him, and that is Pelagianism.

    What?????? I deny all of this. That Adam accesses fellowship with God at all is due to the previous will of God to be in fellowship with him, which fellowship God imposes conditions upon. This is something that you should not have a problem with in theory, otherwise communion with God would not have been disrupted by the fall.

  220. Robert, when you said to Jonathan ” when you make attaining heaven finally dependent on maintaining oneself in a state of grace and justification.” Aren’t they not just maintaining but also increasing justice by their works ? K

  221. Eric, thanks for the links. The article at Turretinfan is great. It was my exact point Jonathan. What good is it to say we don’t earn initial justification when you break the rest of it into other parts which do require your works to increase it. These distinctions don’t exist in Paul and didn’t in Clement. Clement eliminates all faithfulness in justification. I told Tim Kauffman one time, read Roman Doctrine and believe the opposite and you will have arrived at biblical truth. This is the point I was trying to make to Jonathan. For example Romans 5:1 says having been justified by faith we have peace with God. The opposite of that would be future installments of justification. Another example the scripture says one mediator between man and God, but in Rome that means more than one.. The scripture says one high Priest and one finished sacrifice, in Rome its many Priests and continuing ( re presentation) sacrifices.

  222. Kevin,

    You said to Jonathan.. ” Your the one who suggested help for me. Your M.O. is always Protestants misunderstand what the Catholic church teaches. The other alternative is they understand just fine and they don’t believe its the Gospel.”

    Me – what I usually see is you telling us what the Catholic Church teaches regardless what we say. You misrepresent even simple to understand concepts like Purgatory after its been explained multiple times to you.

    The amazing thing is that you believe every knowledgable Catholic is wrong and only Protestants understand what the church “really” teaches.

    How about this, pretend we are decided to start a new church called #becausefutbol. Now address what we tell you we believe and quit trying to tell us what our pretend Protestant church really teaches.

  223. Robert,

    “. What I deny is that God had to infuse grace into Adam’s soul in order for that contact to take place. By virtue of being made in God’s image and likeness (synonyms referring to the same thing by the way), Adam was in fellowship with God from the point of creation.”

    What will heaven be like? What does it mean to”see God as He is”?

    The Beatific Vision is going to see God with no created image. The starts in this life through grace.

  224. Bob,

    I don’t want to confuse you but Methodists are hereditary enemies of Calvinists. You really should be opposing the Presbyterians and the Banglican ( 1/2 Anglican, 1/2 Baptist Eric ) as much as us Catholics.

    You question whether Love is needed for Faith to be justifying? Got a Bible handy?

  225. Bob,

    By the way, 6 or 7 years ago I was obliged to play host for two weeks to a couple from America. he was a Presbyterian minister and she was a Methodist minister. She was dying to perform a gay marriage. Both were pro-choice.

    Where do you/your branch of Methodism stand on this stuff?

  226. Eric,

    Of course you CONDEMN our doctrines. Did you think you are required not to?

    Listen to William Lane Crag’s 5 hour series on Catholicism. ( Unless you deem him to be a “twit” too. )

    Vedetta-esque ? You talk funny, huh Mr. Eric?

  227. Funny? I speak English. You?

  228. Who’s ( not whose ) Eric talking to?

    You are a Banglican. You tutor us bumpkins on fine liqueurs and the arts. You are sweet on Kevin. You think wet dreams authorized fornication ( Hey, if people fall off of cliffs, why can’t we push ’em? ). You can’t differentiate between condemning and mocking. And now you confuse vendetta with burlesque. You are funny, aren’t you Mr. Eric?

    PS Did the other boys tease you by calling you “earwax”? Is that why you are so belligerent behind a keyboard? Being tough through cyberspace is as goofy as Kevin serving his fetid-uccine via the internet.

    If you respond, I will know you couldn’t resist and read my post. Ha!

  229. Eric,

    All kidding aside, some of us are waiting for you to respond to my (not tongue-in-cheek ) “rudimentary essentials” of Calvinism. I threw down the gauntlet* and I picked it up.

    * Gauntlet; a protective glove used as a from of armor by medieval knights. Very effecting when swinging a broad axe but cumbersome when clasping a flagon of absinthe.

  230. Danm! I meant to say “you threw down…”.
    Boy, you are gonna get me for that! Oh well, it will prove you are reading.

  231. DOUBLE DAMN! I am out of here before you start posting. You got me. I misspelled Damn.

  232. Jim–you wrote to Eric, “All kidding aside, some of us are waiting for you to respond to my (not tongue-in-cheek ) ‘rudimentary essentials’ of Calvinism.”

    And I’m one of those individuals.

  233. Trebor,

    Yeah, the food fight is fun but silly. We really should get back to some apologetics and leave the kids stuff behind (for a while ).

    I am dying for Bob to get involved. His denomination is a natural born enemy of the Calvinists. I guess the knee-jerk anti-Catholicism among Protestants has kept them from getting at each other’s throats.

    Some of the best sites exposing Calvinists are manned by Methodists. Bob has been post for a few days now. Time for him to stop dancing and start sparring.

  234. Eric:
    I have decided instead to simply leave him unnamed until he apologizes. At any rate, you two are whack jobs who have no business questioning anybody else’s sanity

    Me:
    Besides being emotionally stunted you most definitely have major issues with facts and the truth don’t you? You can say yes. Don’t be shy. Don’t you?

    In full glare of daylight you made this statement:

    “I’ll return to this blog when I see groveling apologies from you two or when I see that you have been summarily dismissed by our absentee landlord”

    Now without any of the conditions you set above being met you are now saying this:

    “I have decided instead to simply leave him unnamed until he apologizes”

    This is something the elect to heaven do eh? Play economics with the truth? How are you going to get to Heaven with your election when you can’t tell what facts are? You might end up walking into Hell thinking you are in Heaven with this approach to facts (and waste that beautiful, handwritten election card you have been hoarding since the foundation of …).

    What actually happened here is that you have come to realize the eternal folly and utter impotence of your threat and in your typical ‘wiped dog with its tail between its leg’ fashion, you have taken the part of least resistance. Do you now understand why I always see you as a limp factor? Besides being very flexible with the facts you also are blessed with a very pliable constitution. Like overcooked noodles.

    I said something to you a long time ago. When you post comments on the net, the only protection you have is respect for everybody. If you treat everyone with respect you will be treated in return in such a manner. Because there is really nothing you can do to anybody across cyberspace. Respect and charity are your only shield.

    But no! No! You wouldn’t listen. You are too in love with ‘letting off steam’ as you quite hilariously like to put it. Well I have a thermonuclear steam turbine here with me. So I am most happy to join you in the ‘letting off steam’.

  235. Trebor,

    By the way, here is a link to some debates between Calvinist Champion James White and a relatively unknown guy named Steve Gregg. Steve Gregg is not a Catholic. As a matter of fact, the same link may have 5 debates he had with our own Tim Staples. Whether arguing against Tim Staples or James White at no time does he come off in an uncharitable manner.
    Although he pulls no punches, while debating Catholicism, he doesn’t attack the Eucharist or Marian devotion as a”sacred cow”, “idolatry”, “sacrosanct nonsense”, “Bread worship” or “Death Wafer” as Eric and Kevin feel they must in order to communicate their disagreement with our doctrines.

    I guarantee you Trebor, you will not hear such a routing of James White and Calvinism by anyone anywhere as you will here.
    http://www.digitalministries.us/page10.html

    I hope you like them. However, if you would prefer to read stuff on the absurdities of Calvinism, this link is good for that. http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/ac_sin.html

  236. Eric:
    Tell your nameless cohort that we do not mock your Marian dogmas; we CONDEMN them. We do not mock your Eucharistic idolatry; we CONDEMN it. It is far too sad a practice to mock. Every single confessional Protestant condemns these thoroughly unbiblical beliefs.

    Me:
    “Every single confessional Protestant condemns these thoroughly unbiblical beliefs”.

    Ehmm. What do you suppose is wrong with this sentence? You don’t know? Ok. I help you out. With a little story. From Africa.

    You know the hummingbird? Little bird that feeds on nectar? You do? Good, good. Very good.

    I suppose you also know the hummingbird is only found in the new world. That will be your side. Now due to convergent evolution the old world (that will be my side) has its equivalent of the hummingbird. They are called sunbirds. Same small sized nectar feeding aerial acrobats. Nice little birdies.

    So the story goes that this particularly small sunbird one morning woke up and had so large a drink of nectar that it decided to challenge the gods to a fight! Try and visualize that! Minute little thing, because it had a bellyful of nectar and inebriated by its sweetness challenging the gods?! Punching the air and shouting in its squeaky little voice:

    “Common you gods! What you waiting for?! I knock all your teeth out! I have had with you lot! Common!”

    I always see you guys exactly as I see this crazed little sunbird. Typing furious on your keypads, nostrils flaring, eyes blazing and muttering under your breath, “damn those Catholic! Damn the whole lot to hell! Damn them!”

    The thing you guys fail to realize is how impotent and insignificant you are. So you condemn Catholic beliefs? Ok? So? What?

    As per Kenneth’s excellent illustration you have moved houses so often that you have failed to notice that your house has gotten progressively smaller until it is now just a windswept thatch roofed hut with no walls. What is the meaning of confessional Protestant? In an effort to possess apparent purity, you have resorted to slicing and dicing, renaming, repackaging and rebranding. I can bet you that more than 90% of the world have never heard of Calvinism and even if they have heard it they assume it’s a toilet cleansing detergent. Your confessional Protestant tag is a Hodge podge of entities who are only united by there aversion for Catholicism.

    I have heard you mention that Anglicanism is growing in Africa. Ehmm. You better check that report again. Anglican, Baptist, Methodist etc are being decimated by the Pentecostal movement here. The so called ‘confessional Protestant’ are losing their youths to the prosperity preaching, seed sowing, justification by miracles, doctrinally empty Pentecostals with the thieving pastors. And you guys are completely powerless to stop this trend because why? It’s only you guys over there in the western world that creates all these naming scheme. Here at the pointy end of the spear no one knows what is called confessional or magisterial Protestant. You all are just Protestants. So an Anglican or Baptist youth sees no difference between his Church and Helicopter of Christ Ministry (And yes. That is the name of a Church).

    I know lots of people who attend the more ‘Orthodox’ protestant churches who complain bitterly about the influence of the Pentecostal movement on their churches. Not only are they losing their youths to the attraction of these churches but a lot of the pastors of these ‘orthodox’ Protestant churches (especially the younger one) are now aping the attitudes and outlook of the Pentecostals.

    So the western world is rapidly de-Christianizing (according to your press). African and South America where you expect to grow your numbers have been taken over by Pentecostalism that you guys deny the tag ‘Protestant’ to. So now your endangered species of a confessional Protestant says they condemn Catholic beliefs and you expect me to do what? Panic? You are insignificant, impotent and no longer a factor. You make a lot of noise cardinally because you are empty vessels.

  237. Eric:
    You both give Catholics a very bad name.

    Me:
    Ahhh! Don’t be like that! Why do you have to go and say something this wicked? Common man that is not fair. Below the belt. Referee please stop this match and disqualify Erico.

    Lol.

    Inconsistent old geezer. Suddenly there is something called bad Catholics. Eh? Do you remember calling the Catholic Church a dead Church on this blog. You do, don’t you? If Catholicism is dead what is the meaning of ‘giving Catholics a bad name’? How do you ascribe a bad name to a dead entity? Catholicism is dead according to you. Please tell me how I can give her a bad name.

    Besides sanction from a man who can insult a married woman the way you did here is to be worn as a badge of honour. It means I have done exceedingly well.

    You are an embarrassment Eric. To decent men.

    Reminds me of the corny little line: “if loving you is wrong, then I am a criminal”

    And you are a very good and typical Calvinist. Depraved and morally blind. And your limpness and arthritis, and we have a winning combination.

  238. Eric:
    I will no longer be using your name either. Figure it out if I am speaking to you. Or don’t. It really doesn’t matter to me.

    Me:
    Exactly what is that supposed to accomplish? So you won’t use my name? Ok? What about it? Who even told you Mikel is my name in the first place, you addle-brained, inconsistent, arthritic, overcooked noodle!

    Eric:
    Kevin and I are not outliers. We are rank-and-file Protestants who–what d’ya know?–hold to Protestant beliefs. So sue us!

    Me:
    No. I am not going to sue you. Because there is really nothing to sue. What is left of you guys is just a bunch of creaking, arthritic, cranky old men like you. And talking about arthritis, how is yours? We have a special treatment procedure here in Africa that is used to cure arthritis. So for a limited time only, you too can have this special treatment for the eensy bitsy price of your election and a wagonload of pain.

    Lol. My main man Erico. You picked the wrong dog to tangle with. I thought you knew better.

  239. Mikel,

    You apologize to Eric first, then I will.

    Ha! Just kidding.

    Eric wants to know why we Catholics can play so rough in trashing Calvinism but pull the “that’s not fair, you play to rough” card when he wants to slur Mary and the Eucharist.

    He feigns to be deeply offended when we rip apart Unlimited Atonement or Irresistible grace. Why can we attack his deeply held beliefs but he isn’t permitted topple our “sacred cows” he so innocently asks.

    For starters, Eric’s beliefs are not deeply held. They have not been cherished since his childhood. He has not suffered for them nor seen his parents suffer for them. His beliefs are just where his head is at today. Tomorrow he will have evolved.

    You see, Eric was raised a Lutheran by a long line of very staunch Lutherans from the Old Country. If we Catholics were deriding Lutheranism, and he cried foul, we would back off in a heart beat.
    Eric has jettisoned the faith of his fathers for his own amalgamation of groups as disparate as the Baptists and the Anglicans. He has as much as said he has zero emotional investment in either of those two bodies.

    Kevin has even less right to claim we deride his long held beliefs. He has no background in Calvinism. Nor does his family. He “got saved” by Baptist John MacArthur as an adult but has long since turned from his spiritual father to Presbyterianism.

    With the exceptions of Lutheranism and High Church Anglicanism, Protestantism has no devotional life to speak of. ( I remember Scott Hahn saying that as a Protestant he wanted to read some books on prayer and the spiritual life. His Gordon Conwell University library had only Catholic books. He asked his Protestant professor why this was and was told there are no Protestant books on these topics ).

    Eric and Kevin want to know why, as guests, since they are invited to visit, why they can’t come in, walk over to the fireplace, pick up our mother’s picture off the mantel, and spit on her face. They don’t know why we, as gracious hosts and hostesses, don’t smile and preen them for doing so.

    Calvinism is a head trip. A world view. A philosophy. A system. Not a Faith.
    They don’t really feel hurt when we pick it apart. They feel sheepish for believing it. They feel frustrated when they can’t defend it. But they aren’t offended.

    They are playing games.

  240. @Robert:

    If this were really true, there could be no talk of increasing justification or meriting heaven in any sense.

    Apparently Paul did not get the memo: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

    Neither did Jesus:

    If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

    Yes, and that’s exactly what Trent says. One must obey the law to be justified, but grace, not obedience to the law, is the basis for this obedience being effective. It is also a completely different standard than the standard of the law, which was absolute perfection, and that is because the basis for the relationship is not obedience (the law) but grace. That is why there is a distinction between initial justification (how one gains the status in the first place) and how justification operates.

    Let’s go into Pelagianism in greater detail:

    The very act of creation itself is grace as is any covenant God establishes with people. Nothing compels him to do either. For God to show up at all is gracious it is true, but Adam didn’t need an extra infusion of grace to enjoy that presence.

    Adam didn’t compel anything by his obedience. God created Adam in fellowship with him and made obedience the condition of continuing to enjoy that fellowship. This is basic Christian theology, unless you want to tell me Adam was not under a probationary period.

    What I deny is that God had to infuse grace into Adam’s soul in order for that contact to take place. By virtue of being made in God’s image and likeness (synonyms referring to the same thing by the way), Adam was in fellowship with God from the point of creation.

    God made Adam and gave him everything he needed for fellowship with him. God freely chose to do this, just as he chose to put Adam under probation. He didn’t make an unstable creature that by virtue of creation itself could not be in fellowship with God.

    That Adam accesses fellowship with God at all is due to the previous will of God to be in fellowship with him, which fellowship God imposes conditions upon. This is something that you should not have a problem with in theory, otherwise communion with God would not have been disrupted by the fall.

    That’s not basic Christian theology; it’s basic Pelagian theology, and that’s why everything you’ve said (or linked, by the way) is essentially just an admission of the fact. You are saying that Adam was in fellowship with God “[b]y virtue of being made in God’s image and likeness.” But all men are created in God’s image (or image and likeness, if you are arguing that they are the same thing), so that would mean every man must be in fellowship with God by virtue of created human, which is obviously false. Conversely, if the image and likeness is lost in the fall, that would mean that men are incapable of being in fellowship with God by nature, meaning that salvation is absolutely impossible.

    Therefore, Adam’s fellowship with God and probationary period could not possibly have been a result of being created in the image and likeness of God. The easiest way to see that is that even the angels needed grace to see God. The reason you give is exactly why Pelagius thought that man must necessarily have the ability to reach God, i.e., because we were created in his image and likeness. But for purposes of Pelagianism, the pre-fall/post-fall distinction is irrelevant, because pre-fall and post-fall men are both created in the image of God. Also, for exactly the reason that you gave, i.e., that communion with God can be disrupted by the fall, that communion cannot be an element of nature. It’s not a question of capability, as if the law were the correct standard, but fallen man is incapable of fulfilling it. Rather, the error of Pelagianism is in thinking that the law is God’s standard for human obedience in the first place or that any standard of human obedience creates standing before God, for that matter.

    You continue to think that what Jim is describing (lack of the preternatural gift of integrity) is a bad thing, precisely because you see the ability to obey God as an essential element of being “upright.” But as Perry pointed out in the linked article, natural goodness and moral goodness aren’t the same thing. Lack of integrity, the instability that Augustine pointed out, doesn’t mean that you *will* sin, only that you *might* sin under the right circumstances. But because you have that Pelagian instinct that goodness means that we need to be able to obey God, that strikes you as a metaphysical deficiency, an evil, as opposed to merely being a creaturely limitation.

    Lawrence Feingold deals with every one of your objections in the Q&A here:
    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/lawrence-feingold-on-original-justice-and-original-sin/

    Pay particular attention to questions 3 and 5. When Prof. Feingold talks about “Protestants,” he means you.

  241. +JMJ+

    Robert wrote:

    Jonathan wrote:
    .
    I’m not saying that he needed anything else to be in fellowship with God if God wanted to be in fellowship with Adam. All the Catholic view says is that Adam did not, by virtue of existing as a human being, automatically have the ability to compel God into fellowship by his obedience. The reason that Adam could be in fellowship with God is that God decided to be in fellowship with Him. In other words, fellowship with God is grace, not a reward for following a covenant of works.

    Adam didn’t need an extra infusion of grace to enjoy that presence. …
    .
    Adam didn’t compel anything by his obedience. God created Adam in fellowship with him and made obedience the condition of continuing to enjoy that fellowship. This is basic Christian theology, unless you want to tell me Adam was not under a probationary period. Continuing in fellowship was most certainly a reward, else nothing would have been lost in the fall. It is ridiculous to say otherwise when you make attaining heaven finally dependent upon maintaining oneself in a state of grace and justification.

    IOW (in regard to the bolded text) for the Catholic, attaining Heaven is dependent on being continually open to the action of Grace, dependent upon not shutting the door to Grace’s action. For the Catholic, Man is, always and everywhere, continually dependent upon Grace. This is a simple consequence of his being a creature.

    In contrast, by spurning the idea that man did not need to maintain an open and docile attitude with respect to Grace, you hold that Adam didn’t need, as you say, that “extra infusion” of Grace to “maintain that fellowship with God”, since the grace of his own created being was enough. Instead of a perpetually free gift for which Adam had to “maintain” a continual humility and thankfulness, the “grace of his own Nature” was at Adam’s disposal as a tool or an instrument. He was free to use it, to lay it down in indifference and to take it up again at whim. This Tool of Fellowship with God was Adam’s by Nature, and he could have attained to his ultimate end (i.e. to Heaven, to God) by virtue of his natural powers, these tools with which which he was created, acting alone.

    Which is exactly Jonathan’s point.

  242. Mikel said ” the amazing thing is that you believe that every Catholic is wrong and only Protestants understand what the church teaches.” No I believe Catholics understand what the Roman Catholic church teaches Mikel. They don’t understand what the Apostles and the catholic church preaches. Tim Kauffman makes an amazing argument from Scripture how the Roman apostasy came about in the 4th century from within the church as foretold by Paul in Thessalonians when He specifically says it had already begun. And these are very important things that we are discussing. God Bless

  243. Kevin,

    Im sorry for the way you are treated here. I hope you know that not all Catholics behave this way. Whenever I was a protestant, i was always drawn to the charity and kindness through which my RC interlocutors would respond to my rants and insults. Catholics were always kind to me even when i was intentionally insulting. Always so patient with my ignorance. Sometimes i go back and reread those old threads that left such an impact on me (and my family by extension)… i am sorry thay you have not experienced the same kind of love over here.

    I dont think that you are a lying, brainwashed, nutjob, who can only ever respond like an answering machine…. but i am sorry that people representing the catholic faith have called you those names. If you ever have any questions about the Faith feel free to shoot me a personal email. I may not be as smart as some of these other guys but i promise not to ridicule and insult you.

    You are in my prayers daily friend.

  244. Kenneth, wow, thank you, and as I have told you on your blog, you have always treated me with respect for which I am grateful. God Bless you Kenneth.

  245. Mikel, do you intend to just berate Eric and Protestants or are you going to present arguments. Put the Spear down and be part of the respectful exchange.

  246. Kenneth,

    Kudos for your charity to Kevin.

    Just remember though, when you invite Kevin to vent and let off steam, be sure you don’t give him the green light to walk on the Mother of Jesus. Or Jesus Himself in the Blessed Sacrament. You are free to turn your other cheek if you think it will hasten Kevin’s conversion. I am all for that. But please don’t turn Our Lady’s other cheek. At Fatima ( if you believe in Fatima ) she spoke about how it hurt her Immaculate Heart to hear the things Kevin & co. says. So, balance out saving Kevin and making reparation for the things you invite him to say.

    And be sure to not turn the other cheek of your fellow Catholics who have been trying to get through to Kevin for months. Please don’t undermine their efforts or judge them. You have so much compassion for Kevin and so little for them.
    By the way, how is that patience and long suffering working out for you? Last time I lurked, Kevin has been repeating the same, “Quit smuggling Jesus on the cross by your magic waters of Baptism meriting more works righteousness and idolatry by collapsing the head and body…” nonsense unabated for weeks now.
    I don’t see much headway. Maybe a little tougher love would hasten that conversion along.

  247. Jonathan sai to Robert ” Yes, thats exactly what Trent says, one must obey the Law to be justified” ” Paul, Therefore having been justified by faith.” Romans 8:1 There is now justification for those who are in Christ” 5: 9 ” Much more now having been justified by His blood. Jonathan what were you saying about lying?

  248. Kenneth,

    By the way, I am not telling you not to try your way. I am just asking you to remember the Church is OUR Church. Mary is OUR Mother. Not just yours. If you think letting the Eucharist being mocked is the way to go, fine. But the Church, Our Church, doesn’t necessarily agree. Let YOUR Mother’s face be spat upon if you want. But I don’t authorize to let My Mother’s face be spat upon.
    I listen to a lot of Dave Anders, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, etc. They are pretty nice to non-Catholics. But they aren’t door mats and they don’t tolerate baloney on their shows.
    Fr. Mitch won’t even let someone speak who doesn’t address him as Father Pacwa or Doctor Pacwa. No game playing there.
    So, do your best. Just don’t compromise the Faith that so many people are suffering for just to look good. And at some point, you just may have to dust off your sandals and give up and move on to more fertile ground.

  249. Asking Mikel to “put down his spear”? … How is this the respect that you expect from others?

    Kevin, you weren’t responding properly to Mikel’s accurate prognosis or diagnosis – what ever – that “the amazing thing is that you believe that every Catholic is wrong and only Protestants understand what the church teaches.” You responded by referring to Catholics when it is Protestants like you that Mikel had in mind. IOW, your answer was twisted.

    How’s that for integrity?

  250. Have been lurking but now that I’ve “stood up” would like to say that … Nick, you’re spot on in your analysis of comparative paradigms!

    That’s why I left the Reformed faith. True to form, it’s inherently legalistic … sometimes, it’s like worrying and pontificating about the speck in the other person’s eye when you have a log in your own …

  251. Oh yeah and then there is the hypocrisy of “sola scriptura” …. “pretending” or deluding oneself that one hold to sola scriptura when in fact ……… the Reformed & Presbyterian hold on to so many unscriptural beliefs … such as the covenant of works (heresy), and divorce and remarriage (whether one agrees with the Christic injunction or not, that’s the original teaching!) and not least penal substitution ……

  252. JIM–
    The United Methodist Church book of Discipline of 2012 states:
    Article IV
    •¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

    •¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

  253. Bob and Jason Loh,

    Bob, I acknowledge having received your correspondence and thank you.

    Also, Hi to Jason L..

  254. KEVIN–
    [Thessalonians tell us that when the “man of perdition” appears and he is a religious man who puts himself up in the church as God. Many of the fathers were afraid that he would come from within the church and they wouldn’t know it.]

    Let’s see now. You also believe that the Catholic Church is a false religion.

    Man of Perdition comes from the Church.
    Roman Catholic Church is not the Church.
    Protestant Church is the True Church.
    Ergo, The Man of Perdition is Protestant.

    Got it. Does Tim Kauffman fit in those shoes?

  255. Jonathan, said to Robert ” Thats not basic Christian theology but its Pelagian philosophy” No its Pelagian to say that the gracious creation of Adam in fellowship with God ( all that God made was good) wasn’t SUFFICIENT grace and after the fall God’s grace alone isn’t sufficient thru faith alone in Christ. Where can we go to in Genesis and witness this sacerdotal system starting with the infusion of this soul substance ( accident). 1st Plato 10:9-10. Lombard and his cohorts wanted to locate their pollution in the creation of God. Sorry he and his intellectual buddies are responsible. Adam was created with all that was necessary to obey.. HE sinned. God don’t make junk. Man makes junk. Even today in Rome they want to give the credit to man for salvation as ” a reward to their merits and good works”

  256. Wosbald said ” For the Catholic, man, is always dependent on God’s grace” Trent ” as a reward to their merits and good works” Well not totally dependent like Calvinist.

  257. Bob,

    I just want to pass on to you my great love and respect for the United Methodist Church. As a youth, I was in a Methodist Boy Scout troop. Nothing but positive memories. As an adult, I have found sharing faith with Methodists to be very rewarding. Polemics never….charitable dialogue always….differences slight….agreement often profound. I once encountered a Methodist pastor at a wedding who, upon learning that I was a Catholic, pulled me aside to share that he privately believed in the real presence.

    Please continue your comments, which I find to be very sensible. I am sure the Wholly Spirit is guiding you. Once I had the great embarrassment of writing during Advent, ” And may the Holly Spirit prepare you for Christmas.”

  258. Jim, You keep saying that we we walk on Mary. This is a lie. Mary is my sister in Christ and I will look forward to meeting her someday. We just believe that when she praised her Lord and SAVIOR she meant what she said. And we believe she loved her children. She considered herself a humble servant of her Lord and we should look at her as a model Christian. But she hasn’t heard a prayer since the day she died and plays no part in our salvation.

  259. Jason, Hi welcome back. How are you. Maybe how you can explain that my words are twisted. And incidentally that post should have been to CK who asked me that question. I gave her a straight forward answer. Some come on this site and speak the words of Luther and want to wear the cool Roman Catholic basketball uniforms. Hint! So maybe you can get you one foot out of the Tiber and plant your flag. Mine is planted.

  260. @Kevin:
    I really wish we could get back to this issue of what is driving your need to misrepresent Catholics, rather than just repeating the misrepresentations. People say that you’re a decent person, which is fine, and I have no reason to quibble with it. But this obsessive antipathy is not natural for a person with that demeanor, so there must be something driving the aberrant behavior.

    And no, I was not lying. Justification is a status; one must obey the law (of Christ) not to lose that status. But it is not because obedience itself earns the status, nor is this obedience indefinitely possible without grace. That was reflected in the last half of the sentence that you chopped off. In other words, both things are true: justification, as a status, comes through faith alone by grace alone. But even though it doesn’t come by means of the law, it can still be destroyed by violating the law. That’s how to reconcile that justification comes by faith alone, but that only the doers of the law are justified.

    This is why the whole argument on Clement has been an extended exercise in question-begging. If one assumes that justification and sanctification are not one and the same thing, then one interprets Clement as saying one thing. If one treats justification and sanctification as being the same thing, then one interprets Clement in another way. I would advance the stronger claim that Clement *cannot* be consistently interpreted in a way that separates justification and sanctification and that the attempts by people like TF to introduce this conceptual distinction into Clement are vain. But leaving that aside, the point is that it is clearly possible to both honestly and reasonably say that Clement is teaching exactly what Trent teaches.

    Thus, your claim that we are dishonest in claiming that Clement is consistent with Trent is unjustified.

  261. Jason said ” The Reformed faith is inherently legalistic” Its like worrying about the speck in your brothers eye when their is a log in your own.” Of course the other alternative is that a sacerdotal system of meriting increase is a false gospel contrary to JBFA. And it could be what the Reformers believed that Rome put up sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement. Jason, standing up for the Gospel is something we are commanded to do. It has nothing to do with the verse about the speck in your brothers eye, but more Galatians 1:9. He seemed to care about it. Of course there are Chameleons who preach certain words of Luther and have their feet in Rome.

  262. And, Kevin, PS, being created good does not require being in fellowship with God. Adam was both created good and gifted with what was necessary for fellowship with God. The fact that this was a gift doesn’t make Adam’s nature “junk” any more than rocks and trees and stars and brute animals are junk because they don’t commune with God.

  263. Jonathan, I disagree. Paul says ” not of yourself” “not of works” It can’t be both in justification. Rome can’t overcome this with the installment program where it is partially of your works and partially of grace. ” Not of yourself” is in antithesis to “as a reward to their merits and good works” all the philosophical categories won’t jump this hurdle.

  264. Jonathan, “Adam was gifted with was necessary to fellowship with God.” Yeah, so what God created wasn’t really that good at first because He needed to go back and infuse him with the grace that He forgot to give him in His gracious creation of Adam. Got it. Adam fell morally Jonathan, not ontologically. He broke a covenant. He needed redemption, not medicine. Philosophy teaches a high view of autonomous self. The Philosophers had their globe upside down and their head in it, and were not aware of their utter depravity. Lombard and his buddies suffered from this residue and tried to locate their sin in the creation of God. The onus is on you to show these philosophical categories in scripture. They aint there. God said let there be light…. justification. Then He said let the earth bring forth ……. sanctification. All a work of God. God brings about ALL of salvation thru his Spirit and his word the Gospel. All of salvation is forensic for Paul. Our sanctification is nothing more than our reasonable service of worship. Sanctification like all of Salvation is a work of God, and to make it at all of man is to violate ” not that of yourselves” and “it is the power of GOD for salvation to all who believe. Rome does not believe this. God Bless you.

  265. +JMJ+

    Faith wrote:

    And incidentally that post should have been to CK who asked me that question. I gave her a straight forward answer.

    So, you’re still insisting, despite all protestations to the contrary, that CK is a girl? Lemme guess … you think he’s “Debbie”, right?

    And you think Mikel is Debbie, as well, right?

    You caught us. Truth is, we’re all Debbie. Jesuit Triple-Fakeout, bro.

    Debbie is everywhere.
    Debbie is everything.
    Debbie is everybody.
    Debbie is still the king.
    .
    Man o man
    What I want you to see
    Is that the big D’s
    Inside of you and me.
    .
    Debbie is everywhere, man!
    She’s in everything.
    She’s in everybody…
    .
    Debbie is in your jeans.
    She’s in your cheesburgers.
    Debbie is in Nutty Buddies!
    Debbie is in your mom!
    .
    She’s in everybody.
    She’s in the young, the old,
    the fat, the skinny,
    the white, the black,
    the brown and the blue people got Debbie in ’em too.
    .
    Debbie is in everybody out there.
    Everybody’s got Debbie in them!
    Everybody except one person that is…
    Yeah, one person!
    The evil opposite of Debbie.
    The Anti-Debbie.
    .
    Anti-Debbie got no Debbie in ’em,
    lemme tell ya.
    .
    Faith Kevin Veil has no Debbie in him.

  266. Kenneth–

    Thank you. How I have waited for any Catholic to say something even remotely decent on this blog. (I exaggerate, but not by much. You have always been gentlemanly. Debbie is usually quite kind to me though not to Kevin. Dennis is a good guy.)

    Where did you find these patient Catholics? I have not “experienced the same kind of love” that you did anywhere in the Catholic blogosphere. I had a 48-page correspondence going with a Catholic on another blog. Totally civil as far as I could tell. We never touched on the topics of Mary or the Eucharist. One day, without warning, he must have taken exception to something I said, I’ll never know. He deleted everything. This kind of oversensitivity has been the norm in my interactions with Catholics.

    Like the proverbial ugly American in Europe who refuses to even attempt to learn another language but expects everyone to cater to English speakers, Catholics by and large refuse to learn even the basics of the Reformed system before entering into dialogue, all the while castigating their Protestant interlocutors if they trip up on a single nuance of the Catholic faith.

    I have suggested a good number of times that a starting place would be for them to read J.I. Packer’s introductory essay to John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” It is a mere 20 pages and easily accessible on the web. (I’ll gladly send a link to anyone having trouble finding it.) I have had no takers to date (that I am aware of).

    Jim and Mikel have thoroughly poisoned this site. Someone needs to inform Jason that his blog has been trashed. I have been drop-dead tired and easily provoked. I heartily apologize for my role in the downward spiral. I will not be addressing them again…ever. Not here. Not anywhere. I’ll stick to it this time.

    Mikel is probably not from Nigeria. There are somewhere between 20 and 25 million Anglicans in Nigeria, mostly Evangelical in character, and yet “Mikel” has never seemingly heard of the Church of Nigeria, the largest and fastest growing province in the whole Anglican Communion.

    I would have been happy to respond to any serious attempt Jim might have made to describe the rudiments of Reformed theology. Unfortunately, he never made one. Scott Hahn, by the way, is sadly mistaken in his evaluation of the Gordon-Conwell library.

  267. If there’s no “installment program”, then how to deal with the Genesis 12/15 issue? When will a Protestant ever talk about it?

  268. Jonathan, one more thing if I may. We don’t separate justification from sanctification. We distinguish them. Justification undergirds all of salvation. We are justified and adopted at the beginning of the relationship and never lose that status because He says He loses none of His and our salvation is dependent upon God romans 1:16.

  269. Trebor, Paul says Abraham was justified by faith Genesis 15. He says in Romans 5:1 having been justified by faith we have peace. Its in the Aorist past participle and brings present tense peace. Not a cease fire. 5:9 having been justified by Hid blood and having been reconciled. Rome has a tense problem and won’t let Him be Lord and Savior, risen! Again the good news isn’t God will help us achieve His favor with His help, but that someone else lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. ” The righteous shall live by faith.”

  270. Kevin,

    Between Kauffmans, Kenneth’s and this blog, I am sure getting a lot of practice answering and re-answering your, “not of yourselves” business.

    You are quoting Ephesians correct? Not Philippians, “not of myself”. Nor Titus, ” not by works done in righteousness…” either right?

    In Ephesians, St. Paul is speaking to a group. He is talking about being chosen “in Christ”. He doesn’t speak of being chosen TO BE in Christ. IOW, people first get into Christ and then are, as a body, chosen or elect.

    So, the question you are asking is, how do people get into Christ. Titus, Ephesians and Philippians all say it is not by works, whether of the Law ( Philippians ) or natural, pre-grace works ( Ephesians and Titus ).

    How do we get in Christ? Baptism according to Titus 3:5. Romans too.

    The quote you keep throwing out is talking about getting into Christ a.k.a. initial justification, a state of grace or the Church.

    We know final justification is not the issue for one very simple reason; Paul’s audience is still alive.

    The Council of Trent said that neither Faith nor works merit initial justification.
    Ephesians and Trent jive.

  271. Wosbald, I’m sorry, I thought CK was a woman. If CK isn’t I apologize. I will start addressing Him. Thanks

  272. Wosbald, you have to understand that Debbie once called me to apologize for misleading me on here as she was posting as Lynn. I would be posting under my own name but i have been asked not to and I will do as I was asked. There now you have the facts and now you can go back to rightly dividing the truth.

  273. Eric,

    ( You can still read what I write. Nobody will know otherwise ).

    Last night one of the bloggers, Mikel by name, was accused of being from a “3rd World” country by an ugly American, Kevin.

    As I have worked in the Angolan community of Lisbon to some extent, I would like to tell you and Kevin that they are 95% Catholic and the rest either Protestant or J.W.. With very few exceptions, they are all very zealous believers in their respective Faith traditions.

    Should anyone visit Rome, they will see wherever they go, groups of Filipino. African and Latin American seminarians. Relatively few American and European seminarians.

    The developed countries have contracepted themselves into oblivion. The future is Angola, the Philippines and South America.

    You and Kevin probably don’t know this, but America is not the mecca it once was. My area is filling up with Yanks who want out of America.

    The racist waspish superiority ( from an Italian ) presented on this blog last night was a scandal.
    Let’s hope Jason Loh is not addressed with the same simple-minded bigotry as Mikel was.
    It is Mikel ( and the rest of us ), and not you two, who should be apologized to.

  274. Jim, again Rome has tense problems. Ephesians say ” For by grace you have been SAVED. It does not say for by grace you have been put in a state of salvation which in the end will be determined by your participation in the sacraments to get increase. Sacrificial efficacy does not replace the atonement. The entrance way into this salvation has always been faith and the exit will be the same. ” The righteous shall live by faith” Sacraments are not works on the past of man to increase his salvation. They are confirmations of grace we already have thru faith, the spirit and the Word.

  275. Jonathan–

    The difference between our soteriologies is not really between a separation or non-separation of justification and sanctification. It is whether or not initial justification is irrevocable. (Or, another way of putting it is whether or not we should exclusively associate genuine justification with election.)

    We emphatically believe that justification and sanctification are of a single cloth, undivided. The technical distinction between them is merely to establish that the while process of salvation from start to finish is secured by Christ and Christ alone. He will never go back on his word. He will never fail to accomplish that which he seeks to accomplish.

    Another quote from Clement of Rome:

    “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent.  He has established it by His almighty will.  But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will?  And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”

    It sound to me as if he holds justification to be irrevocable. Are you sure you’re not reading Trent back into Clement?

  276. Kevin,

    Maybe my male chauvinist PIG is showing but, it is very unbecoming for a man to keep targeting a woman on a blog like this. Stop stalking Debbie. You look silly fighting with a woman for months and airing what you think is her dirty linen.

  277. CALVIN-
    [Please continue your comments, which I find to be very sensible. I am sure the WHOLLY Spirit is guiding you. Once I had the great embarrassment of writing during Advent, ” And may the HOLLY Spirit prepare you for Christmas.”]

    FUNNY!!

  278. Kevin,

    “Saved” means to be brought into the Church in the passage you quote. Remember, Paul is not not talking to dead people. They are still alive and “will be saved” if they persevere.

  279. Kevin,

    “Sacrificial efficacy does not replace the atonement.”

    Indeed. They apply it. Otherwise, according to your view that the atonement applies itself, all men have been saved for the past 2,000 years, no faith, repentance or Baptism needed.

  280. Jim,

    Just remember though, when you invite Kevin to vent and let off steam, be sure you don’t give him the green light to walk on the Mother of Jesus. Or Jesus Himself in the Blessed Sacrament. You are free to turn your other cheek if you think it will hasten Kevin’s conversion. I am all for that. But please don’t turn Our Lady’s other cheek. At Fatima ( if you believe in Fatima ) she spoke about how it hurt her Immaculate Heart to hear the things Kevin & co. says. So, balance out saving Kevin and making reparation for the things you invite him to say.

    I have not invited him to say anything derogatory. Unfortunately, to my count, Roman Catholics who I would presume are on this website to evangelize people just like Kevin, are the one with barbed words and personal insults. Everyone knows that I am not one to mince words…. but just saying insulting things for the sake of insulting someone is a bad witness and a horrible representation of our Church. If you can’t keep the great commission in mind, perhaps you should not be interacting with protestants over the web. Its not a formal debate. There are no score cards. The only losers are those who miss out on the truth and damn their souls. Make sure you aren’t a stumbling block.

    And be sure to not turn the other cheek of your fellow Catholics who have been trying to get through to Kevin for months. Please don’t undermine their efforts or judge them. You have so much compassion for Kevin and so little for them.

    What are you talking about? I have “so little compassion” for who?!

    By the way, how is that patience and long suffering working out for you? Last time I lurked, Kevin has been repeating the same, “Quit smuggling Jesus on the cross by your magic waters of Baptism meriting more works righteousness and idolatry by collapsing the head and body…” nonsense unabated for weeks now.
    I don’t see much headway.

    I just sow and then go to sleep. Not concerned with how the seed grows. Its not my job to stir hearts to conversion, that is the Holy Spirits role. I just sow and then go to sleep.

    “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; 27and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows– how, he himself does not know.

    by the way, I am not telling you not to try your way. I am just asking you to remember the Church is OUR Church. Mary is OUR Mother. Not just yours. If you think letting the Eucharist being mocked is the way to go, fine. But the Church, Our Church, doesn’t necessarily agree. Let YOUR Mother’s face be spat upon if you want. But I don’t authorize to let My Mother’s face be spat upon.
    I listen to a lot of Dave Anders, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, etc. They are pretty nice to non-Catholics. But they aren’t door mats and they don’t tolerate baloney on their shows.
    Fr. Mitch won’t even let someone speak who doesn’t address him as Father Pacwa or Doctor Pacwa. No game playing there.
    So, do your best. Just don’t compromise the Faith that so many people are suffering for just to look good. And at some point, you just may have to dust off your sandals and give up and move on to more fertile ground.

    As soon as I encourage or allow that kind of behavior I will gladly accept that reprimand. Seeing as such has not taken place, the only one I can see compromising the faith are those who can not find it in their hearts to be charitable and not sling insults. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS. You need to adjust your witness

  281. Kevin–you wrote, “Trebor, Paul says Abraham was justified by faith Genesis 15. He says in Romans 5:1 having been justified by faith we have peace. Its in the Aorist past participle and brings present tense peace. Not a cease fire. 5:9 having been justified by Hid blood and having been reconciled. Rome has a tense problem and won’t let Him be Lord and Savior, risen! Again the good news isn’t God will help us achieve His favor with His help, but that someone else lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. ‘The righteous shall live by faith.'”

    If Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6, then how on earth do you explain what Hebrews 11:8 says about him?: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.”

    Compare the following from Genesis 12:

    [1] Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.
    [2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
    [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.”
    [4] So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.
    [5] And Abram took Sar’ai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had gathered, and the persons that they had gotten in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. …

    If anything, Geneva “has a tense problem”; the Reformed view takes into account only the past-oriented statements, while the non-Calvinist standpoint can also handle the present/future-directed ones:

    Matthew 24

    [9] “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.
    [10] And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.
    [11] And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
    [12] And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.
    [13] But he who endures to the end will be saved.
    [14] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.”

    Romans 5

    [9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
    [10] For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

    Romans 10

    [9] [I]f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    [10] For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

    Philippians 2

    [12] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
    [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

    1 Timothy 2

    [15] Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

  282. Eric–you wrote, “The difference between our soteriologies is not really between a separation or non-separation of justification and sanctification. It is whether or not initial justification is irrevocable. (Or, another way of putting it is whether or not we should exclusively associate genuine justification with election.)”

    This topic is definitely worth discussing. I hope Jason, Nick, or someone else writes a post on it or permits an open thread about it.

    What do the other participants think?

  283. Trebor,

    If Trent was correct AND Abraham was justified in Gen.12, then Paul was wrong. Abraham was justified by works in Gen.15 and had a boast before God. You are bound to believe Paul and Trent were correct; therefore, Abraham was not justified in Gen.12.

  284. Alrighty.

    Here we go.

    Eric:
    Where did you find these patient Catholics? I have not “experienced the same kind of love” that you did anywhere in the Catholic blogosphere.

    Me:
    Eric for a long time I tried to tell you in particular, something. That the fact you beliefs are different from someone is not grounds to disparage that someone’s beliefs. Disagreements over beliefs should never degenerate to being caustics, saying hurtful things about other belief systems. My posts are still on this blog where I said all these to you. That was the Mikel you yourself admitted was gentlemanly.

    You didn’t pay any heed. You kept making baseless and total unfounded and inflammatory statement. The Catholic Church is dead. Catholics worship Mary. You were actually the one who started the nonsense about the people of the third world not being able to tell the difference between worshipping and adoring Mary. Robert just assumed ownership of it and consequently caught the full force of the backlash that came from it.

    All three of you have gone to CTC. And all three of you have left, bad mouthing it. CTC is heavily moderated precisely to encourage and make dialogue as charitable as possible. But one after the other you all left complaining about one form of spurious grievance or the other.

    You in particular, complaint was that they wouldn’t allow you “let off steam”. That they wouldn’t allow you make uncharitable comments. You have taken it as a given that snide and derogatory comments are part of Christian dialogue.

    Catholic answers will also not allow you make caustic comments. If you posted that the Catholic Church is a dead Church there, you will immediately be banned. Kevin will not last two posts there before being tossed out.

    So if your idea of dialoguing with Catholics is “to find patient Catholics” that will permit you to “experience the same kind of love” that involves them lying down and being trampled upon, am afraid you might eternally search in vain. Ecumenism is not an avenue to ride roughshod over anyone. Expecting Catholics to be patient while you insult what they believe and hold dear is not dialogue or ecumenism. It is just you insulting Catholics.

    My goal for some time here has been to show you guys the futility of belittle not just Catholicism but any other belief systems you don’t share. See I come from a place where within your extended family, you would have Muslims, all flavour of Christians and traditionalist. You learn from a very young age how to respect and even appreciate other belief systems. You either do that or you quickly find yourself a pariah.

    I also come from a place where words are used as verbal swords. And I particularly excel when it comes to that. I refrained from showing that side of me for the longest time here. But you guys will not leave well enough alone. So I decided to let you guys discover where the road you are so intent on treading leads to.

    And exactly as expected you are already cowering and crying for help and reaching out to Kenneth and any Catholic who just happen to pass by.

    Behave yourselves. Don’t insult. Don’t belittle. Don’t make caustic, sarcastic comments. Refrain from all these and it will be well with you. Keep doing all these and you will always have me to tangle with. And you all know how I roll.

    And stop referencing Jim. You have been talking to him all these while (whilst making fun of his grammar. Why do you always do that to people by the way? Makes you feel superior?). Your issues are with me. I am the one you are utterly clueless as to how to handle. And my issue with you and your team go way back way before Jim started posting here. So leave Jim out of this.

  285. Jim,

    I would ask you to please ease up, stop commenting so much, and resist feeding your infatuation with Kevin.

  286. Eric:
    Mikel is probably not from Nigeria. There are somewhere between 20 and 25 million Anglicans in Nigeria, mostly Evangelical in character, and yet “Mikel” has never seemingly heard of the Church of Nigeria, the largest and fastest growing province in the whole Anglican Communion.

    Me:
    So who do you think Mikel probably is? One of the CTC guys masquerading as a Nigerian?

    Stop being so flexible with the truth. You still appear to be having difficulty with the facts. Point out where I said I have never heard of the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Do that and let me see it. Your comments about Anglicanism growing rapidly in African is what I addressed. Someone to conform to your twisted view of facts, it became that I said I have never heard of the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Back up what you said here. Shouldn’t be that difficult.

  287. Eric W–
    [Trebor,
    If Trent was correct AND Abraham was justified in Gen.12, then Paul was wrong. Abraham was justified by works in Gen.15 and had a boast before God. You are bound to believe Paul and Trent were correct; therefore, Abraham was not justified in Gen.12.]

    Pardon my interruption Trebor, but I just have to correct my Protestant brothers here. Catholic Church or no, Trent or no, my Protestant Bible as well as yours has the book of James listed in the New Testament. It says in the 2nd Chapter verse 21ff
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “and 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.

    This is the plain text written by the Bishop of Jerusalem James, who is also considered the brother of our Lord Jesus. I personally cannot call him a liar. And he is using the same text from Genesis as you are using and coming to a different conclusion than you. I know that Paul does not contradict James on this or there would have been more said at the Council of Jerusalem.

    So I am more apt to believe the plain text of the Book of James than what you are trying to make Paul say in his letters.

    Again, Trebor, pardon the intrusion.

  288. Jason Stellman,

    Infatuation? Maybe morbid curiosity, sworn enmity, even sick obsession. But not “infatuation”.

    Surely, Dick Tracy was not infatuated with Big Boy Caprice. Nor was Van Helsing enamored with Dracula. The tiger is not infatuated with the jackal he stalks. Sherlock Holmes hounded the evil Dr. Moriarty not out of affection but out of a sense of duty. Raphael chased Asmodeus to Ethiopia only to bind him.

    Ha! Just kidding.

    Sure Jason. I will spend the weekend in a village in the mountains next to Spain. I might not have wi-fi. I need a break from Kevin and Eric anyway. Until then, I will tone down a bit as requested. Promise. Ciao

  289. Bob,

    I don’t mind being corrected. Your quote from James is consistent with Trent. This fact makes it difficult for any RC who thinks Gen. 12 is a justification of Abraham. Gen.15, in light of Trent and a presumed Gen.12 justification, shows Abraham being justified by faith and works. Paul would be wrong to exclude works and boasting from Abraham. No RC can argue against this on the grounds of a definitive teaching. The teaching doesn’t exist and RCs should stay away from the Gen.12 justification position.

  290. I’ve said it once, perhaps twice, in this thread already. But must I become a broken record player? My words aren’t sinking in, apparently.

    I’m not Catholic.

    So, I’m not bound by any declarations promulgated by the Council of Trent.

    Thank you. I may say more later.

  291. Oh my!!! You mean they can’t run to Trent to tell you that what you believe is not really what you believe? This is about to get interesting!

  292. Eric, dear brother, where did you get that last quote from Clement?

  293. Jim, please take Jason’s advice. I am not targeting Debbie. I don’t even talk to her or about her. But I was only responding to Wosbald.

  294. ERIC W–
    Yeah, I can see where a presumption may arise from Abram believing God in Gen 12. There may be a connection there somehow but you are right. There is not a definitive teaching there. When did God change his name from Abram to Abraham? And why?

  295. Kevin you said – “Wosbald, I’m sorry, I thought CK was a woman. If CK isn’t I apologize. I will start addressing Him. Thanks”

    Me – come on dude! I’ve told you more than once that I’m not Debbie and I’m a male, but whatever. Btw, Jesus did say you must forgive in order to get to heaven. I suggest do so, just in case you are wrong about being one of the “elect”.

    Wosbald that was funny… Debbie everywhere.

  296. Ck,
    Do you think Gen.12 is a justification ? If so, how do you answer my argument ? A non-fallible answer will be interesting ! Never mind…my knowledge of RC teaching causes me to exalt myself. Love builds up, so don’t answer it. I’m not that good with Trebor’s beliefs

  297. Jim, I understand why you compare yourself to Sherlock Holmes, because you are always making a SPECTACLE LOL.

  298. Kevin,

    Easy. Take it easy.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Isn't It Really Justification by Baptism? | Old Life Theological Society - [...] substitute caller for Jason of the Callers has tried to reverse the table and claim Roman Catholicism as the…
wordpress visitor