7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I saw him/her use that odd term once or twice:
Made me kind of wonder where he/she got it from.
Catholicism vs. Biblical Christianity
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Made me kind of wonder where he/she got it from.
I see!
Sorry that was lost on me!
I've had him on ignore for a week or so now. All I've seen from him mostly is stuff I catch when someone I don't have on ignore quotes him.
I used to be able to tolerate his sort but I now I have to take people like him in small dozes. Otherwise, I tend to lose my temper and lunatics aren't worth that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The most obv answer is that the first is rhetorical.
There's a category that God has set up, it's like the Mt. Rushmore of the Old Testament. Enoch, Noah, Job and Daniel.
$$ Ge 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.
$$ Ge 6:9
These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
$$ Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
And we don't have any record of Daniel sinning (Ezekiel 14:14, 16, 18, 20), he is a paragon of virtue and morality, in the book about him.
If anybody's going to get added to that category it'd be Jesus's mom.
And maybe His cousin John the Baptist.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Only Enoch didn't actually make the cut:
Ezekiel 14:14 KJV — Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
John at least doubted.
Noah got drunk and didn't stop his son from "seeing his nakedness".
Job was rightly chastised by Elihu, who was NOT chastised by God with the three other friends.
Elijah should be added to your list.
And with the deletions and additions, all we have is Enoch and Daniel and Elijah, and only Daniel makes the top three. Elijah is expected to come back at some point, so he seems like a viable candidate for one of the two witnesses, meaning that God had other plans for them, and it wasn"t because they were sinless that God took them up to heaven.
Hebrews 11:5 KJV — By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
It is difficult to see the need for Christ to die on the cross if any one man was able to be sinless without the cross, because that woukd suggest all men coukd do it.
Whether Mary was without sin seems fully answerable by the Catholic prayer: "...Mary, full of grace...". If she needs grace, why? If she was sinless, then she must have earned what she gets, like your examples of Noah, Daniel, and Job. Grace wouldn't be needed.
Romans 4:4 KJV — Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
And of course, because of
Romans 5:20 KJV — Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound
then Mary, if more "full of grace" than the next person, must needs be much more of a sinner than most.
Psalm 14:3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.
Psalm 53:3 Every one of them has turned aside; They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.
Romans 3:10 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one;
Romans 3:12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.”
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Is there ANYTHING that you believe that is actually biblical?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The word "only" or "alone" is not in Romans 5:1
The Church contested "faith alone".
The only place in the Bible that says "faith alone" as you know, is in James. Where he says that you're not saved by faith alone. This is supposedly written to the kingdom citizens, so having James using Body-of-Christ language like "saved" is surprising. Being in the kingdom was a matter of citizenship, not salvation.
$$ Jas 2:14
What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
"save". Why 'save'? Why is James talking about salvation, about being rescued? What are kingdom believers being rescued from?
Anyway sticking the word "alone" in there—that's the proposition the Church is correcting. You may argue the Church is making a straw man argument, you may argue that no Protestants were saying "faith alone" saves, but to say that the Church is contradicting the Bible, which has no such proposition ...
Faith saves, yes. But when you say faith ALONE saves, where are you seeing that in the Bible, explicitly? I understand that it is a doctrine, an interpretation, a 'take', but it isn't a matter of merely quoting a verse and being done with the matter. The word "alone" is not in Romans 5:1, but it IS in James 2:17
$$ Jas 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Nobody even believes that anyway, this could just be an attack on a straw man (or a scarecrow).
Counterexamples. Nobody thinks Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler could possibly have been believers. It's not just because they didn't publicly profess they believed in Christ. There are lots of people who don't publicly profess their faith in Christ, but Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler, just for counterexamples, nobody believes they were Christians. And it's not because they never heard their testimony. That's not the reason.
Ergo, it cannot be "by faith alone", according to most everybody. So saying, "Look at this teaching of the Church, that everybody believes in anyway," isn't the 'dunk' you think it is.
Nobody believes it. I mean except for radical liberal theologians—they might believe it. But they are NOT conservatives.
Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler couldn't just say, "Oh I have faith, so I'm good, I'll be saved, I'm going to Heaven." Nobody believes that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And this is all the Church is saying. And you guys are like, "See?! The Church is anti-Bible!"
Because Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler weren't Christians?
Again, I'm just using counterexamples, which refute your argument. This is all I'm doing. If you want to argue those aren't counterexamples, I have plenty more to pick from, and for every monstrous person I propose, you're going to have to say that, "Yes, them too, if they had faith, could have been Christians. In spire of them being monsters."
Textbook argument from silence.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Your unreasonable focus on specific English words is reminiscent of how cults do their doctrine. It isn't the word that's important, it's the concept which that word names.
James was written to believing Jews who came to Christ while under the law and therefore remained under the dispensation of Law.
James 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Dispensational distinctions related to various books of the bible is, however, beside the point.
First of all, as I said above, your unreasonable focus on specific English words is reminiscent of how cults do their doctrine and leads to errors such as the argument from silence you presented as the opening sentence of your post. It isn't the word that's important, it's the concept which that word names.
Secondly, and more importantly, this is all in refutation of an argument no one has made. It is, however, understandable why such an error on your part could have been made because of the examples I chose to give. Let me take the opportunity that you've presented me and drive the point home....
The assertion that “Catholicism is Biblical Christianity” is not only historically and doctrinally false, it is self-defeating by Catholicism’s own standards. According to the Catholic Church itself, Scripture is NOT sufficient to define or contain the fullness of Christianity. Catholic doctrine is explicit: truth is found in Sacred Tradition, Magisterial teaching, and Scripture - TOGETHER.
So, by its own system, Catholicism does not claim to be based on Scripture alone or even primarily. It denies that Biblical Christianity (i.e. faith and practice derived from entirely from Scripture) is complete without the Church’s authority.
So when you claim that “Catholicism is Biblical Christianity,” there are two possibilities. You are either...
- Contradicting official Catholic teaching (which says Scripture is insufficient apart from the Magisterium and Tradition), or....
- Redefining ‘Biblical Christianity’ to mean “whatever the Church says Scripture means,” which is circular and intellectually dishonest.
Idolator said:
There is a “vs” and Catholicism itself creates it by denying the sole authority of scripture and asserting that the Bible cannot be rightly understood apart from Rome. So by their own claims, Catholicism is not Biblical Christianity. It is something more - by design and by definition.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? I believe it!
This again is an argument from silence. It is a very revealing argument from silence in that it exposes a whole list of false doctrines you hold but that's a discussion for another time.
So, first of all, public profession of faith is not what saves you, faith is. And while I agree that there is no evidence of faith on the part of these men, that isn't what should be rightly used to determine whether such men are or aren't saved, but rather the affirmative evidence of their lack of salvation.
In short, given the actions of these men and without evidence to the contrary, the reasonable thing would be to assume that they went to Hell when they died.
Can you see how that is functionally the opposite of what you are suggesting one should do?
LOL!!!!
I really do find it funny when morons who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag use words like "Ergo"!
Yes, it is.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Not sure what the "it" is here but, for the record...
I 100% believe, without qualification, that ANY person who BELIEVES the following things WILL be saved, no matter who it is or what they've done or failed to do throughout their lives...
- God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
- We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
- Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
- Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
- Jesus rose from the dead.
- If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.
It isn't about saying it, it's about believing it. It isn't about lip service, it's about genuine faith in Christ's redemptive work on one's behalf, which implies an acknowledgement of one's need of redemption.
Last edited:
This, I'm quite sure, was an intentional lie!
That is NOT all that the church is saying and you KNOW that this isn't all they're saying!
We are all monsters Idolater! Some very clearly worse than others but it's only a matter of degree.
The fact is that none of us really have any firm understanding of just how evil we really are, nor will we have such an understanding until we find ourselves standing before Him who is the standard of righteousness that we have betrayed over and over and over again throughout our lives.
The blood of God Himself was shed for the sins of all mankind, including all the mass murderers and serial killers you've ever heard of and all the hundreds of them that you haven't heard of as well. And salvation is offered to them just as it is you and on the exact same basis. You cannot overcome the grace of God with sin.
I Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
| Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ |
The word "and" or "plus" or "in addition to" or "alongside" or "in conjunction with" is not in Romans 5:1. Wouldn't you agree, then, that in Romans 5:1, at least, Paul is only teaching that justification is by faith? That he is not teaching that justification is by something other than faith? In that verse, at least, to state what justification is by, Paul uses the phrase "by faith" alone, as opposed to using it in conjunction with a following phrase like "and works".
Derf
Well-known member
Of course Paul, not having said "alone", left room for the other things required for our justification, like:
Romans 5:9 KJV — Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
And:
Romans 3:24 KJV — Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
As well as:
Galatians 2:17 KJV — But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
In other words, faith alone is insufficient. Our faith must be in the thing which actually can justify, Christ's death on the cross. And even that isn't all, as it requires His resurrection:
Romans 4:25 KJV — Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Different Greek words are behind these instances of "by"—different from the Greek behind the "by" in Romans 5:1. I should note that I have a handy, easy-to-use New Testament Greek resource standing by by which I was enabled to find that out by simply consulting it.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Paul says we are justified by faith, so our faith actually can, nay, does justify. Must our faith be in our faith?
Derf
Well-known member
Hardly. Else many who reject Christ by faith in something untrustworthy would be justified.
Last I checked, 7s was still talking about faith in Christ, not anything else...
Clearly, faith in something other than Christ (such as one's works, perhaps?) will not result in justification.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
$$ Jas 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
$$ Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
$$ Jas 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
$$ Jas 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
$$ Jas 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
$$ Jas 2:22
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
$$ Jas 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
$$ Jas 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
$$ Jas 2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
$$ Jas 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
It's like the only thing you don't want "faith alone" to mean, is what it actually means, Biblically. Here is the Biblical definition—and the only one—for "faith alone". "Faith alone" is the above.
"Faith without works", "is dead".
And the analogy in this rhetoric:
$$ Jas 2:15
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
$$ Jas 2:16
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
It tells us, that faith without works is like telling someone who needs rescuing, "Good luck with that". "Faith without works is dead" because this is what it looks like, like passing by someone on the other side of the street, like in the Good Samaritan, and saying, "Good luck with that".
Last edited:
Seems like you missed the part where James (one of the Twelve Apostles who agreed to go only to the Circumcised) was writing to......
...
...
...
Wait for it............
...
THE TWELVE TRIBES SCATTERED ABROAD!
Oh, but silly me, I forgot to mash everything together and make it all say the same thing to everyone. Whoopsie!
/sarcasm
:vomit:
He didn't miss it. He doesn't care. He thinks he is a New Testament Jew or the equivalent of one. No biblical argument can touch his doctrine because he doesn't get his doctrine from the bible. The bible is only there to lend support to his dogma, when such support is both needed AND wanted, otherwise the bible is ignored, blown off, or otherwise undermined to whatever degree is necessary to maintain the dogma. It's dogma, dogma, dogma, all the time, every time, no matter what.