Confused Baptist, Potential Convert...

[OneForTruth]

What about Justification by faith alone?? Romans makes it clear that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from works. For some reason, the CC does not teach this…James 2 seems to be a confusion point…BUT…the big thing here is that justification in James 2 is a different justification than in Romans. Justification in Romans is the declaration of one to be righteous - a pardoning of the sinner, whereas the justification in James 2 is a vindication of sorts - that the faith of a person is shown to be genuine and that person is proven as being one who has saving faith…

James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can **that faith **save him?

James 2 disputes against those who SAY they have faith but it really is demonic, useless, dead faith. To SAY you have faith is not enough to prove that you are one of God’s saved elect (justify you) - works/fruit are the inevitable outflow/evidence of saving faith which is a gift given by God. 1John goes through much of the fruit that should be evident in the life of a true believer.

Why we always get hung up here I do not understand.

 

[djrakowski]

Over here, as Linkowski, you said the following:

Nobody said, either, that the gathering up of the elect is a piece of cake either. When they elect fall, there has to be someone there to pick them up…it may require the gospel being heard on several occasions before the ground of the heart is prepared properly. You are having wrong presumptions about the gathering up of the elect. It takes work - human means - ALL ORDAINED OF GOD.

But now, as OneForTruth, you’re saying the following:

What about Justification by faith alone?? Romans makes it clear that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from works.

In one instance, the gathering up of the elect requires human works ordained by God to be accomplished. Here, however, you’ve stated precisely the opposite.

 

[guanophore]

What about Justification by faith alone?? Romans makes it clear that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from works. For some reason, the CC does not teach this…James 2 seems to be a confusion point…BUT…the big thing here is that justification in James 2 is a different justification than in Romans.

Because this is not what Jesus and the Apostles taught. The problem most Protestants have with Romans is that they fail to make a distinction between works of the flesh, and sacred works. Sacred works are those based upon faith,and that proceed from faith. They are evidence that justification has occurred. The are the "works pepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

There is no discrepancy in scripture. James and Paul describe two ends of the same elephant.

Justification in Romans is the declaration of one to be righteous - a pardoning of the sinner, whereas the justification in James 2 is a vindication of sorts - that the faith of a person is shown to be genuine and that person is proven as being one who has saving faith…

Just as the Catholic Church teaches. Faith, working through love.

Why we always get hung up here I do not understand.

Taking single verses out of context, and not taking the message of the NT as a whole.

 

[mikeledes]

What about Justification by faith alone?? Romans makes it clear that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from works. For some reason, the CC does not teach this…James 2 seems to be a confusion point…BUT…the big thing here is that justification in James 2 is a different justification than in Romans. Justification in Romans is the declaration of one to be righteous - a pardoning of the sinner, whereas the justification in James 2 is a vindication of sorts - that the faith of a person is shown to be genuine and that person is proven as being one who has saving faith…

James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can **that faith **save him?

James 2 disputes against those who SAY they have faith but it really is demonic, useless, dead faith. To SAY you have faith is not enough to prove that you are one of God’s saved elect (justify you) - works/fruit are the inevitable outflow/evidence of saving faith which is a gift given by God. 1John goes through much of the fruit that should be evident in the life of a true believer.

Why we always get hung up here I do not understand.

This OneforTruth/Linkowski thing is pretty confusing. :whacky:

God Bless,
Michael

 

[christcnection1]

What about Justification by faith alone?? Romans makes it clear that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from works. For some reason, the CC does not teach this…James 2 seems to be a confusion point…BUT…the big thing here is that justification in James 2 is a different justification than in Romans. Justification in Romans is the declaration of one to be righteous - a pardoning of the sinner, whereas the justification in James 2 is a vindication of sorts - that the faith of a person is shown to be genuine and that person is proven as being one who has saving faith…

James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can **that faith **save him?

James 2 disputes against those who SAY they have faith but it really is demonic, useless, dead faith. To SAY you have faith is not enough to prove that you are one of God’s saved elect (justify you) - works/fruit are the inevitable outflow/evidence of saving faith which is a gift given by God. 1John goes through much of the fruit that should be evident in the life of a true believer.

Why we always get hung up here I do not understand.

You’ve got to be kidding me!

If God intended faith alone all He had to do was ensure that the words “we are saved by faith alone” are in the Bible. The only place the words “faith alone” are together, says that we are not saved by “faith alone.” He could have also ensured that the early Church believed this.

If God intended “faith alone” He didn’t do a good job of ensuring His people would not walk in theological darkess for approximately 1,500. If “faith alone” is true, then the early Church was walking in grave confusion within the first couple centuries. What would that say about God? Not something good…

If you go down this road, bring it on. We will be happy to (charitably) make the false doctrine of Sola Fide look like a bunch of malarchy – straight from the Bible.

I might also suggest that you start a new thread. This will help keep the discussion focused.

God Bless,
JB

 

[Teflon93]

You’ve got to be kidding me!

If God intended faith alone all He had to do was ensure that the words “we are saved by faith alone” are in the Bible. The only place the words “faith alone” are together, says that we are not saved by “faith alone.” He could have also ensured that the early Church believed this.

If God intended “faith alone” He didn’t do a good job of ensuring His people would not walk in theological darkess for approximately 1,500. If “faith alone” is true, then the early Church was walking in grave confusion within the first couple centuries. What would that say about God? Not something good…

If you go down this road, bring it on. We will be happy to (charitably) make the false doctrine of Sola Fide look like a bunch of malarchy – straight from the Bible.

I might also suggest that you start a new thread. This will help keep the discussion focused.

God Bless,
JB

Luther certainly tried to clarify things by adding one more “faith alone” pairing to Romans.

Didn’t work out to well for someone claiming sola scriptura, though.

 

[christcnection1]

This OneforTruth/Linkowski thing is pretty confusing. :whacky:

God Bless,
Michael

Are they the same person? I’m not following…

 

[djrakowski]

Are they the same person? I’m not following…

Yes, mikeledes and I believe they’re the same person.

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, mikeledes and I believe they’re the same person.

Well, I don’t think we have a forum rule against Sock Puppetry.

I just want to note that Ani Ibi, Estesbob, and I are different people. NOBODY could type that fast!

 

[LDNCatholic]

The Bible tells us that Christains are to pray for each other. this is intercessory prayer. The saints in heaven can not hear your prayers, they are not omnipresent and our prayer do not flow to them through the air waves. Finally only God can answer your prayers
By the way, every one that is in heaven is a Saint not just a special few.

Christians are not separated by death. They can see and hear us, we can not do the same to them. Of course they can hear our prayers. They are not omnipresent but this world is so small and easily seen by someone who is no longer part of it. Also the Catholic Church also teaches that everyone in heaven is in a saint, but the people we call St. this or that are people who we know beyond doubt are in heaven.

 

[djrakowski]

Well, I don’t think we have a forum rule against Sock Puppetry.

I just want to note that Ani Ibi, Estesbob, and I are different people. NOBODY could type that fast!

 

[BobCatholic]

Fidelity to the word seems to be the charge. Lineage was a means to try to guarantee fidelity to the message. Lineage in itself is nothing if the message is corrupted.

Interesting charge.

Please note that we have no original manuscripts of any of the New Testament books. Zero. They are nowhere to be found on the planet. The best we got are copies of copies of copies of … of copies, and those are the earliest manyscripts outstanding.
Based on these earliest manuscripts, everyone have their Bibles.
Now, between the Apostles’ pens and that early manuscript, how did it get there?

They were copied, distributed and protected by the Catholic Church. It was the only Church on the planet during this time, that’s a historical fact.

That written message was not corrupted, and it was in the hands of the Catholic Church. DESPITE being copied and handwritten by members of the Catholic Church! Somehow, the Bible is considered INERRANT despite having the fingerprints of the Catholic Church all over it. Somehow, the Holy Spirit managed to protect the Bible from us messing up the message.

If you can still make an accusation at this point against the Catholic Church about the Bible in the time period between the Apostles and the estimated date of the earliest manuscripts, you attack the inerrancy of scriptures themselves.

Now, what about the Apostolic interpretation of scripture? It was passed down orally through the same centuries, through the very same Catholic Church.

Somehow that message was screwed up but the Bible wasn’t?

Oral Apostolic tradition = screwed up
Written Apostolic tradition = preserved inerrantly

According to you, the Holy Spirit was inconsistent. I vehemently disagree.

 

[Teflon93]

This is a good point to recall another good deed of the Catholic Church.

The Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered Christianity wiped out, its Scripture destroyed.

The Catholic Church copied out enough Bibles that copies survived Diocletian.

Repeat after me:

No Catholic Church, no Bible.

Lack of charity may prevent some from recognizing ANY good the Catholic Church has done in history, but if you love the Bible, you ought at least acknowledge those brave Catholics who risked life and limb to preserve it for you.

 

[christcnection1]

Yes, mikeledes and I believe they’re the same person.

If that’s the case, is this against CAF’s rules? This seems a bit immoral to me.

 

[christcnection1]

This is a good point to recall another good deed of the Catholic Church.

The Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered Christianity wiped out, its Scripture destroyed.

The Catholic Church copied out enough Bibles that copies survived Diocletian.

Repeat after me:

No Catholic Church, no Bible.

Lack of charity may prevent some from recognizing ANY good the Catholic Church has done in history, but if you love the Bible, you ought at least acknowledge those brave Catholics who risked life and limb to preserve it for you.

Well, you’re forgetting that Fundamentalist group that traces their history to the early Church. I’m sure they were preserving God’s holy word throughout the ages better than those Papists.

No, actually, I’m not sure we can absolutely know if we would have a Bible or not if the Catholic Church did not exist.

Hypothetically, God could have ensured some other means. However, the mere fact that God chose the Catholic Church to safeguard and affirm the written word of God says a lot about God’s desire to use the Catholic Church.

This begs the question:

Why would God use a false institution, deep in theological darkness (if Protestantism is true) to preserve (in painstaking, gut-wrenching, sacrificial ways) the Holy Bible throughout countless generations?

If God did do this, I don’t think that speaks highly of Him at all. That would seem to make Him a God of confusion, had He not used a legitimate authority to carry out such an extraordinary undertaking.

If you revere the Bible, you must also respect the institution that enabled you to appreciate it.

God Bless,
JB

 

[savedsinner]

What about Justification by faith alone?? Romans makes it clear that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from works.

I think that you accidentally added and subtracted words from your comments here.

Scripture tells us that we are saved by faith, not by faith alone, you seemed to have added the word “alone” there. You will only find the word “faith alone” in James 2:24.
And you subtracted the words “of the law” from your statement which should have read: “we are justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

I am sure that it was a typo though, because I really don’t think that you meant to change the words of scripture to fit your theology.

 

[Pani_Rose]

Being raised Baptist, I understand your frustrations there…

Bottom line for me!

There is only one intercessor between God and man, that is Jesus Christ.

BUT his & our Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, and all the saints in heaven can ‘bug’ Jesus for us :extrahappy:Telling Jesus of our needs and concerns. After all, they are there, face to face, just like the Elders in Revelations posted above said it showed they are in heaven. Thanks be to God! Catholics and Orthodox really love tugging on our mothers apron strings and saying momma help

Awesome is our God in his saints! All of them, the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant!!! :byzsoc:

 

[BobCatholic]

Well, you’re forgetting that Fundamentalist group that traces their history to the early Church. I’m sure they were preserving God’s holy word throughout the ages better than those Papists.

No, actually, I’m not sure we can absolutely know if we would have a Bible or not if the Catholic Church did not exist.

Hypothetically, God could have ensured some other means. However, the mere fact that God chose the Catholic Church to safeguard and affirm the written word of God says a lot about God’s desire to use the Catholic Church.

This begs the question:

Why would God use a false institution, deep in theological darkness (if Protestantism is true) to preserve (in painstaking, gut-wrenching, sacrificial ways) the Holy Bible throughout countless generations?

If God did do this, I don’t think that speaks highly of Him at all. That would seem to make Him a God of confusion, had He not used a legitimate authority to carry out such an extraordinary undertaking.

If you revere the Bible, you must also respect the institution that enabled you to appreciate it.

God Bless,
JB

And also another important thing: If the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures, they also preserved the Apostolic interpretation of scripture as well.

The Holy Spirit is not inconsistent.

 

[kaycee]

Somehow that message was screwed up but the Bible wasn’t?

Oral Apostolic tradition = screwed up
Written Apostolic tradition = preserved inerrantly

According to you, the Holy Spirit was inconsistent. I vehemently disagree.

Certainly I never said that the Holy Spirit was inconsistent nor do i think that. Can you please be more accurate when quoting my statements, inferences,thoughts and intentions?

In a nutshell

Oral Apostolic tradition = Is Same as Written tradition, maybe minor incidentals
Written Apostolic tradition = preserved inerrantly

My contention is there is no difference between Oral and Written. I am sure the Apostles might have had a set way of order of service they liked, hymns they liked, various similar “traditions” they liked, Fine!

 

[BobCatholic]

In a nutshell

Oral Apostolic tradition = Is Same as Written tradition, maybe minor incidentals

Where does it say this in the Bible?

Also, one of the “minor incidentals” appears to be the answers to my infamous 4 questions. I wouldn’t consider that to be “minor”

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27?
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?
   The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.
   According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions.