An exclusively Catholic doctrine on justification? Not on TOL

Lon

Lon

Well-known member
musterion said:
No, I don't see the point. "Baptist distinctives" are really meaningless to me now; not just because I'm no longer one of them but because, as you said, the problem isn't Baptist-specific.

What I mean is, I now look at everything (or try to) through the very, very simple and stark lens of the Gospel of grace. Either an individual, church or denomination preaches it...or not. Almost none do -- almost all put some form of work in the mix.. up front or on the back end, or both. L.S. is one example. Water baptism is the other (bigger and far older) example. These problems are not at all unique to Baptists, so there's no point in dedicating a thread just to them.
Click to expand...

When it is MAD against everybody on a particular doctrine, it becomes more specific to another thread. In this thread, it gets a bit convoluted when the concern over a Catholic doctrine, then has a three-way (at least) conversation going between Catholics, Protestants, and then again, MAD, because we are talking about gradients of our dissention. I guess that is the point of your OP - that we aren't far removed from Catholicism on the whole as Protestants and Reformed. My question is and was this: What does it mean? I 'think' it means we are Judaized, but my initial question was important: Were those Galatians, that were Judaized by Peter, lost/never saved?

Why this question? Because in MAD, it isn't a danger, even. Imho, Galatians wasn't really written to MADists. It isn't a pitfall MAD could fall into easily. It is a pitfall the REST of us might, and so Galatians is more for us, because of it. Why? Because it is written to cover exactly this kind of problematic. A subtitle of this thread might be: "Galatians, a book for the rest of you" or something to that effect. For what it is worth -Lon
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Lon said:
When it is MAD against everybody on a particular doctrine, it becomes more specific to another thread. In this thread, it gets a bit convoluted when the concern over a Catholic doctrine, then has a three-way (at least) conversation going between Catholics, Protestants, and then again, MAD, because we are talking about gradients of our dissention. I guess that is the point of your OP - that we aren't far removed from Catholicism on the whole as Protestants and Reformed. My question is and was this: What does it mean? I 'think' it means we are Judaized, but my initial question was important: Were those Galatians, that were Judaized by Peter, lost/never saved?

Why this question? Because in MAD, it isn't a danger, even. Imho, Galatians wasn't really written to MADists. It isn't a pitfall MAD could fall into easily. It is a pitfall the REST of us might, and so Galatians is more for us, because of it. Why? Because it is written to cover exactly this kind of problematic. A subtitle of this thread might be: "Galatians, a book for the rest of you" or something to that effect. For what it is worth -Lon
Click to expand...

Why do you keep trying to make this about MAD? It isn't.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Lon said:
I think, however, it is a MAD concern and perhaps consistency, that it would help for some clarification because of the stark difference.
Click to expand...

It was a concern - a big one - when I was IFB. It still is with their stance on separation (which is growing weaker all the time). To degrees, it's a concern EVERYONE has -- they believe whatever church or group they belong to is THE right one...else they wouldn't belong to it...which automatically means everyone else MUST be in some degree of fundamental error.

That leads any honest thinker to ask, Since everyone believes they are right but they contradict everyone else, who IS right and how can you find out?

I spent a few years wrestling with that (before I was MAD), and came to the conclusion back then that it HAS to go back to the Gospel.

Problem for me was, at the time, I still had a head full of bad doctrines, L.S. among them. 15 years ago, had someone even suggested to me that IFBs put more stock in water baptism than they realized (or admitted), I'd have gotten lit up and told you off. But it would have been true, as I've demonstrated. But IFBs are not alone in that. Pretty much everyone out there, to one degree or another, clings to some form of work even when they'd swear to you that they aren't. Just like I used to.

So explain again how MAD is the one with the problem here?
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Lon said:
You may. As far as my involvement with spiritualists, it often carries drug use as acceptable and viable. Why? Because, specifically, Christianity is incompatible with drug use and they know this. Therefore, in order to deal with their own abuses, they modify spirituality to align with their life-choices. In a nutshell, the bible says they 'suppress' the truth. You can reserve judgement all you like. Imho, it is an unbiblical reserve. Scripture cannot lie. Anyone who is not a bible-believing Christian, is suppressing the truth and making excuse for flesh concerns. You'll rarely, if ever, see any spiritualist back-pedal from the accusation. I am very adamant that drug use is against Ephesians 5:18. They will tell you immediately that the 'letter' of the law kills but what they really mean is, it is killing the old man in them, and they don't want him to die so they make up odd views so they do not have to follow Christ. Something is wrong, 1M1S. Pay attention. These signs are clear and clearly given in scripture. Don't suppress His truth by excusing others who suppress His truth. It is not wise.
Click to expand...

Okay, yer not excused. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
musterion said:
So explain again how MAD is the one with the problem here?
Click to expand...

:nono: Not problem, you misunderstand me. From your perspective, I'm assuming MAD is the only consistent group that would have the 'right' view on works and baptism. Do you know of another group? Certainly you run into many of us that deny baptism is a salvation issue as well as those of us who also agree works are not involved in saving grace in any synergistic way, but because we are from all denominations, I 'think' mentioning MAD (and if there happened to be any other denomination, but I am not aware of it), is helpful and meaningful. The contrast, imho, is important and I 'think' moves discussion. One does not have to be MAD to understand the alternate perspective here, so it was rather in hopes of service to you and the thread, that I brought it up. As I've said in the past, I appreciate the simplicity of MAD the most. Most can grasp its tenants and follow why such is deemed scriptural. I think viewing the simpler forms of systematic theology, actually helps others compare to their own and do not see that as a poor thing, but something serviceable and helpful. :e4e:
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
1Mind1Spirit said:
Okay, yer not excused. :(
Click to expand...

Romans 1:18 Always ask yourself 'why' someone is suppressing the truth and assume God's truth is actual truth. It will help you discern rightly. I know it 'seems' to be judgmental, but that isn't the desire. This is about diagnosis. God has given you the tools. Be familiar with them. Use them. :e4e: -Lon
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Lon said:
:nono: Not problem, you misunderstand me. From your perspective, I'm assuming MAD is the only consistent group that would have the 'right' view on works and baptism. Do you know of another group?
Click to expand...

The only people I have found that come close are the Clear Gospel folks, but in my contact with them even they are still hung up on water rites as required or expected by God...
Water baptism has no part in salvation but is a testimony to the world of one’s faith and identification with his Savior Jesus Christ,
Click to expand...
as one of the SoFs says. IFBs and your average evangelical couldn't say it any better.

Certainly you run into many of us that deny baptism is a salvation issue as well as those of us who also agree works are not involved in saving grace in any synergistic way, but because we are from all denominations, I 'think' mentioning MAD (and if there happened to be any other denomination, but I am not aware of it), is helpful and meaningful. The contrast, imho, is important and I 'think' moves discussion. One does not have to be MAD to understand the alternate perspective here, so it was rather in hopes of service to you and the thread, that I brought it up. As I've said in the past, I appreciate the simplicity of MAD the most. Most can grasp its tenants and follow why such is deemed scriptural. I think viewing the simpler forms of systematic theology, actually helps others compare to their own and do not see that as a poor thing, but something serviceable and helpful. :e4e:
Click to expand...

I've looked but I know of no one outside of MAD -- no one -- who does not believe a water rite, in some form, is not required or at least expected by God...and that makes it a work.
 
God's Truth

God's Truth

New member
musterion said:
A Catholic encyclopedia defines justification as,



It goes on to say how justification is obtained:



Terminology varies but this is the essence of what many non-Catholics here believe...that one cannot be justified by God without works (usually camouflaged by calling it obedience) because justification is not an act of God alone based on the work of Christ alone, but a PROCESS in which a person must cooperate with Christ by works, or at least "bear the fruit" of participating (which still amounts to works), or be lost.

The Calvinistic doctrine of Lordship Salvation, which has spread far beyond the boundaries of Reformed churches, is a distilled and highly refined version of this doctrine but it teaches basically the same thing: if a believer is not bringing forth the "fruit" of authenticating works, his salvation is dubious if not impossible.

@God's Truth is one professing non-Catholic with basically the same belief as taught by Rome but by no means is the only one. Most on TOL hold to some form of it. MADs are almost the only ones who repudiate any such belief.
Click to expand...

So you think that since I preach that we have to do what Jesus says to do to be saved that it makes me like a Catholic?

Catholics do things God says not to do, so how do you ever get that obeying Jesus and preaching obedience is what the Catholics do?

You claim you are doing right by going against the Catholics who claim to do something. So you throw out the baby with the bath water!
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
God's Truth said:
I know you would be afraid to say that to me in person.
Click to expand...

I absolutely would say that to you in person, if you were presuming to tell men what doctrines to believe, as you do here.

The fact that you even need to be reminded that you have no Biblical ground to preach doctrine to men shows that you don't actually believe God's Word.

Why do you not obey the Bible?
 
J

jsanford108

New member
musterion said:
The fact that you even need to be reminded that you have no Biblical ground to preach doctrine to men shows that you don't actually believe God's Word.

Why do you not obey the Bible?
Click to expand...

Who gives you authority to preach doctrine? Or any authority at all?

When Christians are told to deliver the gospel, I do not recall it saying "only men." In fact, it says "brothers and sisters."

Women can have knowledge of doctrine. Women, as teachers of households, are called to teach objective truths. Objective truths, are what we educated people, call "facts." If you dispute a fact, you are wrong. No matter if you are male or female.

I am not saying women should be priests. As a matter of fact, only one group makes this declaration (Catholics/Orthodox), adhering to the sacred traditions established in the Old Testament, and affirmed in the New. But that does not mean women are excluded from being educated in, and educators of, doctrine.

In essence, you are wrong. And you are arguing from a fallacy of authority.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
jsanford108 said:
Who gives you authority to preach doctrine? Or any authority at all?

When Christians are told to deliver the gospel, I do not recall it saying "only men." In fact, it says "brothers and sisters."

Women can have knowledge of doctrine. Women, as teachers of households, are called to teach objective truths. Objective truths, are what we educated people, call "facts." If you dispute a fact, you are wrong. No matter if you are male or female.

I am not saying women should be priests. As a matter of fact, only one group makes this declaration (Catholics/Orthodox), adhering to the sacred traditions established in the Old Testament, and affirmed in the New. But that does not mean women are excluded from being educated in, and educators of, doctrine.

In essence, you are wrong. And you are arguing from a fallacy of authority.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...

TL/DR. Who are you?
 
God's Truth

God's Truth

New member
musterion said:
I absolutely would say that to you in person, if you were presuming to tell men what doctrines to believe, as you do here.

The fact that you even need to be reminded that you have no Biblical ground to preach doctrine to men shows that you don't actually believe God's Word.

Why do you not obey the Bible?
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. I know you would be afraid.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
musterion said:
Silence, woman. Go teach your children. Do you have children?
Click to expand...

So you did read my post, despite replying "TL:DR." How dishonest.

It seems you dismiss anything and anyone that proves you wrong, based on the examples of this within this thread.

If you have a bugle, go ahead and sound "retreat."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top