I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes

[Pug]

Here’s additional insight from the Apostle Paul:

Romans 10

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

together with

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Your selection includes Paul’s citation of the prophet Habakkuk. This citation seems important to his thinking, since I know he cites it in two other places (well, IIR). So, what’s the deal in Habakkuk? Myself, when I read it I see a prophet who wants an answer, where’s the justice in response to all this violence, stuff like that. And Habakkuk faithfully stations himself to wait for an answer. He gets one, but he is going to have to wait more, justice might appear to delay. Habakkuk trusts God about that, though. Even though right now he doesn’t see fruit on the vine or the harvest yet, he will exult in the God of my salvation. Habakkuk is a man of faith, obviously. It sort of reminds me of hope that is seen is not hope. (Rom 8) Habakkuk is waiting just like we are waiting.

Anyway, in the middle of Habakkuk lies the verse Paul quotes.

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.

Btw, the LORD spoke this to Habakkuk, directly after he told him to wait for it. I think it may mean that Habakkuk, who trusts God and will wait is righteous by this. He is compared to the man who’s soul is proud (which makes me think of things Paul says about boasting, but not exactly, because I think in Habakkuk the people are proud in a different way, say, perhaps than they are in Rom 2:17, but maybe not. They seem like the sinners kind of proud, and not the we are children of Abraham kind of proud, but,…). Anyway, I suspect Habakkuk is a model (Paul proposes lots) of faith.

I think a nice summary place in Romans is that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (or is God the God of Jews only).

And, obviously by what I have said, Hebrews does not bother me as part of the discussion. (And this thread is cruising along too fast for me to process all the posts in a meaningful way, so I haven’t read them all).

 

[ryanoneil]

I really like your answers! Do you believe that there is only one people of God instead of two?

After the New Covenant there is one!

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:28-29)

Some people believe the physical jews can be saved without Jesus Christ. Do you believe in remnant theology?

If anyone is saved it is because of Jesus, even if they don’t realize it.
I’m not sure. If remnant theology is anything like dispensationalism, I reject it.

But he finds fault with them and says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. . . . .When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing. (Heb 8:8,13)

 

[ryanoneil]

Do you see how you seem to use Rom 2:7-10 out of context from the rest of the theme of the Epistle to hold on to the Roman Catholic gospel?

What law is Paul refering to here?

They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them (Rom 2:13)

Which is found in

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer 31:33)

Which Christ fulfilled in Matthew 5

Which is found in

Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:2)

Rom 2:7-10 is not talking about works of the law (Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9), which Paul rightly argues against.

It is talking about the law of Christ which is faith in Christ and "good works" based on grace.

For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the “good works” that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. (Gal 2:10)

The Roman Catholic use of Rom 2:7-10 is in context with the rest of the theme of the Epistle and the entire gospel.

eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in “good works”, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. (Rom 2:7-10)

 

[Reformed]

The Ethiopian eunuch believed Philip’s words. Then he asked to be baptized. He not only believed, he accepted and he obeyed. We are saved through faith, but not faith alone.

Do you think Paul taught that we are saved by grace through faith (+) what else? Please try to support your (+) something else with the writings of the Apostle Paul. Here is what I find in the Scriptures according to Paul’s gospel:

Ephesians 2

By Grace Through Faith

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

One in Christ

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

 

[Reformed]

Paul is called the apostle to the gentiles. However, other apostles went to the gentiles in what is now India, Spain, France, and other parts of Europe. Peter went to Antioch and then to Rome. And all preached the same gospel. Paul isn’t ‘our appointed apostle’ any more than the others. He just wrote more letters.

I completely agree with you that Peter believed what Paul wrote. The Apostles all proclaimed the same good news including James. However, God used the Apostle Paul in a greater way in his letters to pass down the gospel to us through Holy Scriptures. The book of Acts also confirms that by the grace of God alone, Paul was seperated from birth for a very unique mission in proclaiming the great good news to sinners in person and through God’s Holy Scriptures.

Can you find the gospel clearly proclaimed in the letter of James? Peter only wrote two small Epistles. How clear is the gospel expounded through Peter’s two small Epistles? If you are going to understand the gospel of God’s amazing transforming and sustaining grace, the foundational books are Romans and Galatians. God used the Apostle Paul to write over half the New Testament. It’s funny for various religions to use one chapter of James to nullify the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul (IMO). Now back to the central Apostle used by God in His Holy Word.

 

[Church_Militant]

Maybe we should look at what Gospel was preached to Saul of Tarsus at his conversion. We find it plainly stated in Acts 22:16 when Saul is told. "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ " This is the same Gospel that St. Paul preached and the same Gospel that was clearly preached by the apostles on the day of Pentecost under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We find it plainly stated in Acts 2:38 where St. Peter says, "[38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” "

Paul’s Gospel? No different than theirs or the rest of the New Testament, nor the Gospel that is preached by the Catholic Church from that day to this.

However, there is a different Gospel being preached today, and it’s the Christianity Lite of the last 500 years.
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Reformed]

Reformed,
cfrancis, Pixie Dust, and Usagi have posted very pertinent comments and quotes that you haven’t really responded to (some in #87 and 93 and 94 I think) about how Paul presents the gospel. I say the gospel instead of Paul’s gospel.

It would be most helpful that, when you post quotes from Paul, you would comment on why you are posting those specific verses. If you could comment on what you think they mean (your interpretation of them) we could better discuss them.

When you just post verses it doesn’t help. Of course we agree with what Paul writes. What we may not agree with is how you, or your denomination’s tradition, interprets his writings.

You are aware that Paul writes “my gospel” correct?

Romans 16:25

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages

1 Corinthians 9:16

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

1 Corinthians 9:23

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

2 Corinthians 4

The Light of the Gospel
Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

I do apologize if it appears that I glossed over some of your postings. My time is very limited right now with work and family. I think the other Protestants on this thread are very like minded with me; therefore we are united when we share. There is no hidden agenda because these are the very exact issues which caused the Protestant Reformers to break from the Roman Catholic Church. If you understood what Paul wrote in the same light as the Protestants on this thread as well as the Protestant Reformers, then you would no longer be Roman Catholic. Therefore, God the Holy Spirit has to illuminate to you personally to see what we see through the writings of Paul. Just go back to the central issue of the Reformation. Justification is the very heart of the gospel of God’s grace. I hope you will continue to share your insights with us. But please restrain to go beyond what is written according to the Apostle Paul.

 

[Reformed]

After the New Covenant there is one!

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:28-29)

If anyone is saved it is because of Jesus, even if they don’t realize it.
I’m not sure. If remnant theology is anything like dispensationalism, I reject it.

But he finds fault with them and says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. . . . .When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing. (Heb 8:8,13)

I too reject dispensationalism. I meant one people of God meaning OT and NT Saints are one… included in one body with the same destiny. Saying the “New Covenant there is one” seems very dispenstational to me. Now back to Paul’s gospel which saves sinners according to the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, I did.
Even the "King" wasn’t perfect . . .

That’s why he needed the Protestant gospel and Protestant Jesus…LOL.

 

[Reformed]

What law is Paul refering to here?

…

Don’t you think our division in Christendom is based on our understanding and reason for our good works done in Christ? Biblical Christians see our good works as the evidence of already been justified on the sole basis of the perfect righteousness of Christ alone. We do the works that God prepared us to do in advance out of our love and gratitude for God in what He has done for us in Christ. We are not trying to merit our salvation because Christ already merited our salvation for us.

Since Roman Catholicism blends justification and sanctification, and Catholic Christians receives final justification at the end of his life, it sure seems the Roman Catholic’s good works done in Christ is the final basis of his justification. And if you were not good enough, then there is purgatory. Do you think my understanding is accurate?

Does the Apostle Paul actually teach that we are credited (imputed) with the righteousness of Christ on our account when we first believe as the sole basis of permanent justification before God?

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being [3] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

The Righteousness of God Through Faith

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Abraham Justified by Faith

4:1 What then shall we say was gained by [4] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Promise Realized Through Faith

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.- Rom 3 -4

 

[Church_Militant]

…Can you find the gospel clearly proclaimed in the letter of James?

Certainly! It’s all through the entire epistle.

Peter only wrote two small Epistles. How clear is the gospel expounded through Peter’s two small Epistles?

The very first chapter of Peter’s 1st epistle is about as clear a presentation of the Gospel as anywhere else in the scriptures, but again, he continues all through his letters to preach the same Gospel that he did on the day of Pentecost…but then you seem to have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that he was the preacher quoted in Acts 2, and several other places in Acts. Oh, and you also seem to have forgotten that a great many folks believe that the Gospel of Mark (who was not an apostle) is actually the Gospel as recounted to him by St. Peter.

If you are going to understand the gospel of God’s amazing transforming and sustaining grace, the foundational books are Romans and Galatians.

If you say so, but (Thanks Be To God) we have the whole New Testament to teach us the Gospel and how to live it, and not just Romans and Galatians. Specifying, as you have such a narrow concept of the Gospel has led to a new, different, and deficient gospel that is not the same one that the New Testament offers.

God used the Apostle Paul to write over half the New Testament.

So what? Quantity is no measure of greater inspiration, nor is it indicative that two mere letters comprises the sum total of the Gospel of Christ. Nor do those two epistles give anywhere near the fullness of the Gospel and it is errant theology to attempt to tell people that they do. This is a very good reason for what St. James tells us in the 3rd chapter of his much neglected epistle when in verse 1 he tells us. “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.”

It’s funny for various religions to use one chapter of James to nullify the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul (IMO).

God forbid! I’m glad that this is just your errant opinion and not something that the Word of God or the Catholic Church has taught for some 2,000 years!

Were I you, I would be far more concerned that I might have set myself up as some sort of Christian authority, or preacher/teacher, while in reality feeding hungry souls less than the true and full gospel as laid out in the New Testament.

Now back to the central Apostle used by God in His Holy Word.

“In your opinion”, but then we’ve already seen that your opinion is errant, so perhaps you can drop the condescension and discuss and explore with Catholics all of the Gospel that is found in the New Testament.

Like perhaps Matthew 25:31-46 That will be a good start I think.

 

[Reformed]

Maybe we should look at what Gospel was preached to Saul of Tarsus at his conversion. We find it plainly stated in Acts 22:16 when Saul is told. "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ " This is the same Gospel that St. Paul preached and the same Gospel that was clearly preached by the apostles on the day of Pentecost under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We find it plainly stated in Acts 2:38 where St. Peter says, "[38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” "

Paul’s Gospel? No different than theirs or the rest of the New Testament, nor the Gospel that is preached by the Catholic Church from that day to this.

However, there is a different Gospel being preached today, and it’s the Christianity Lite of the last 500 years.
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

When was Paul able to see Jesus as the Christ… before or after he was baptized? Paul makes a clear distinction between the gospel and baptism. If Paul believed in baptismal regeneration, then the Roman Catholic Church would have to declare Paul to be a heretic with this statement:

1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Also study Romans chapter four and see the parallel between the OT sacrament of circumcision and the NT sacrament of baptism. Please try to stay within the theme of this thread. If you throw in your standard verses with Peter and James, then you are intentionally trying to derail this thread. LDS Christians have tried to do the exact same thing with a similar thread I created a few months back. I would like to try to reconcile the rest of the NT was the writings of Paul on another thread. Please try to understand Paul without preconceived ideas.

 

[Church_Militant]

… I hope you will continue to share your insights with us. But please restrain to go beyond what is written according to the Apostle Paul.

I think not. Your own initial quote reads as follows, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”

Nowhere in that does it ever even hint that Paul thought his was some sort of definitive work on salvation and to assert that it does erroneously ignores the entire rest of the New Testament
as well as presenting a misguided and misleading version of the Gospel message.

In fact, it actually takes the emphasis off of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, (which St. Paul would never do!) and places it upon Paul. The 4 gospels cover the salvation message from the lips of Our Lord Himself, and it is very much these 4 gospels that refute your concept of Paul’s writings being some sort of grand presentation of the gospel.

The Word of God is beautifully balanced in it’s message of salvation for us all in a way that your concept deforms into a message that is stripped of so much truth that those who follow it would come away with a seriously different an deficient gospel.

Romans and Galatians indeed! I don’t think so…

 

[Reformed]

Certainly! It’s all through the entire epistle.The very first chapter of Peter’s 1st epistle is about as clear a presentation of the Gospel as anywhere else in the scriptures, but again, he continues all through his letters to preach the same Gospel that he did on the day of Pentecost…but then you seem to have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that he was the preacher quoted in Acts 2, and several other places in Acts. Oh, and you also seem to have forgotten that a great many folks believe that the Gospel of Mark (who was not an apostle) is actually the Gospel as recounted to him by St. Peter. If you say so, but (Thanks Be To God) we have the whole New Testament to teach us the Gospel and how to live it, and not just Romans and Galatians. Specifying, as you have such a narrow concept of the Gospel has led to a new, different, and deficient gospel that is not the same one that the New Testament offers.So what? Quantity is no measure of greater inspiration, nor is it indicative that two mere letters comprises the sum total of the Gospel of Christ. Nor do those two epistles give anywhere near the fullness of the Gospel and it is errant theology to attempt to tell people that they do. This is a very good reason for what St. James tells us in the 3rd chapter of his much neglected epistle when in verse 1 he tells us. "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness."God forbid! I’m glad that this is just your errant opinion and not something that the Word of God or the Catholic Church has taught for some 2,000 years!

Were I you, I would be far more concerned that I might have set myself up as some sort of Christian authority, or preacher/teacher, while in reality feeding hungry souls less than the true and full gospel as laid out in the New Testament.“In your opinion”, but then we’ve already seen that your opinion is errant, so perhaps you can drop the condescension and discuss and explore with Catholics all of the Gospel that is found in the New Testament.

Like perhaps Matthew 25:31-46 That will be a good start I think.

Lord willing, we will have a follow up thread to compare Paul and the rest of the New Testament. In God’s wisdom, Paul wrote over half of the New Testament. Then the Apostle John is second in volumes of books. I love the two small Epistles of Peter and the small Epistle of James. But God chose Paul to write much much more.

IMO… the book of Romans is the most foundational in Christian doctrine. The second foundational book in Christian doctrine is the gospel of John. I agree… we need the entire Bible including the OT to properly understand spiritual truth. This is only a thread… that you have an apparent free will to participate and learn what God has for each one of us. Who knows what God is doing on this forum site? Maybe some of the Protestants will become Catholics when we are done?

The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” - John 3

 

[Church_Militant]

When was Paul able to see Jesus as the Christ… before or after he was baptized? Paul makes a clear distinction between the gospel and baptism. If Paul believed in baptismal regeneration, then the Roman Catholic Church would have to declare Paul to be a heretic with this statement:

1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

You wish…however, if Paul was a heretic it would only be to those (like you) who ignore Matthew 28:19, where we are straight off commanded to baptize those we disciple. Since that is also one of the fundamental evangelistic verses of Protestant Christianity, then if Paul says he is not there to baptize then doesn’t that make him a heretic to them?

This just points out all the more the gross inconsistency of your position. The Catholic Church has always understood that Paul was an evangelist, and not a parish pastor, who are indeed the main ones who baptize. But this diverges from the topic here.

Also study Romans chapter four and see the parallel between the OT sacrament of circumcision and the NT sacrament of baptism.

Not a problem! I just happen to have already made that connection very well in these articles. The Case For Infant Baptism I didn’t even have to refer to Romans 4 because there is so much other scripture and verifiable historic Christian writings available. Maybe I’ll go back and add it in though because it will just strengthen my case all the more.
How Is A Catholic Saved?

Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

 

[cfrancis]

There is no hidden agenda because these are the very exact issues which caused the Protestant Reformers to break from the Roman Catholic Church. If you understood what Paul wrote in the same light as the Protestants on this thread as well as the Protestant Reformers, then you would no longer be Roman Catholic. Therefore, God the Holy Spirit has to illuminate to you personally to see what we see through the writings of Paul. Just go back to the central issue of the Reformation. Justification is the very heart of the gospel of God’s grace. I hope you will continue to share your insights with us. But please restrain to go beyond what is written according to the Apostle Paul.

Very interesting opinion, positing your (and the general Protestant) interpretation of Paul is correct. Yet we’ve seen nothing from you - or others - that supports your opinion.
You may, likewise, consider our presentation of Paul’s epistles as opinion.
And there we are, at a stalemate of opinions.
Likewise, if you really understood Paul, and the rest of the NT, you would no longer be Protestant, but would become Catholic; therefore the Holy Spirit must “illuminate to you personally” to see the Truth of Paul’s writings.

Another point: you state:

In God’s wisdom, Paul wrote over half of the New Testament. Then the Apostle John is second in volumes of books. I love the two small Epistles of Peter and the small Epistle of James. But God chose Paul to write much much more.

You present an opinion that what Pual wrote is more “Scriptual” and more “inspired” than any other writing. This reveals the heart of the issue: you view the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Pauline lenses; Catholics view the writings of Scripture through the Jesus.

Now, as Claire points out, many of us have pointed the harmony of Paul’s writing in Romans with Catholic belief, and you have, not surprisingly, glossed over those responses, instead choosing to persist as if we’ve presented nothing.

 

[Reformed]

You wish…however, if Paul was a heretic it would only be to those (like you) who ignore Matthew 28:19, where we are straight off commanded to baptize those we disciple. Since that is also one of the fundamental evangelistic verses of Protestant Christianity, then if Paul says he is not there to baptize then doesn’t that make him a heretic to them?

This just points out all the more the gross inconsistency of your position. The Catholic Church has always understood that Paul was an evangelist, and not a parish pastor, who are indeed the main ones who baptize. But this diverges from the topic here.
Not a problem! I just happen to have already made that connection very well in these articles. The Case For Infant Baptism I didn’t even have to refer to Romans 4 because there is so much other scripture and verifiable historic Christian writings available. Maybe I’ll go back and add it in though because it will just strengthen my case all the more.
How Is A Catholic Saved?

Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

It’s interesting that defenses of Catholic doctrine comes from extra-biblical sources. The links are appreciated but come outside the scope of this thread. Please feel free to start another thread if this one seems stacked against you. This thead allows Roman Catholic Christians to understand how Biblical Christians think and believe. In essence, the Roman Catholic Christian can play the sola scriptura game with us Protestants.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You are invited to play the sola scriptura game! Please see the OP for the rules.

 

[Kscrawler]

Since Roman Catholicism blends justification and sanctification, and Catholic Christians receives final justification at the end of his life, it sure seems the Roman Catholic’s good works done in Christ is the final basis of his justification. And if you were not good enough, then there is purgatory. Do you think my understanding is accurate?

No your understanging is not accurate. You could have saved a lot of time by stating this first. Good Works are not the final basis for justification. The absence of Good works shows that the sinner has turned his back on God’s gift of Grace through Faith. But Grace is always an undesrved gift from God through Faith. Doing good works will not save you. Failing to do good works after you have been given the undeserved Grace to do so is to turn your back on the gift given from God.

This would have been so much easier if you would have taken the time to learn what the Catholic Church teaches instead of setting up a straw man to knock down. Now the good news for you is that the Catholic Church is transparent. You can easily learn what we believe. Now as for what we believe about justification I refer you to the following paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:

2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.

Those paragraphs above refer to Justification, but what about salvation?

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. “Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

This whole thread has been driven by your misconceptions about the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I give you an "A for your biblical scholarship and an “F” for your understanding of Catholicism. Before you make any further unwarrnted mistakes I refer you to this link. www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Reformed]

Very interesting opinion, positing your (and the general Protestant) interpretation of Paul is correct. Yet we’ve seen nothing from you - or others - that supports your opinion.
You may, likewise, consider our presentation of Paul’s epistles as opinion.
And there we are, at a stalemate of opinions.
Likewise, if you really understood Paul, and the rest of the NT, you would no longer be Protestant, but would become Catholic; therefore the Holy Spirit must “illuminate to you personally” to see the Truth of Paul’s writings.

Another point: you state:
You present an opinion that what Pual wrote is more “Scriptual” and more “inspired” than any other writing. This reveals the heart of the issue: you view the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Pauline lenses; Catholics view the writings of Scripture through the Jesus.

Now, as Claire points out, many of us have pointed the harmony of Paul’s writing in Romans with Catholic belief, and you have, not surprisingly, glossed over those responses, instead choosing to persist as if we’ve presented nothing.

Will you admit that the Roman Catholic gospel is dependent of Sacred Tradition and cannot be supported by Scripture alone?

 

[Church_Militant]

Lord willing, we will have a follow up thread to compare Paul and the rest of the New Testament. In God’s wisdom, Paul wrote over half of the New Testament. Then the Apostle John is second in volumes of books. I love the two small Epistles of Peter and the small Epistle of James. But God chose Paul to write much much more.

IMO… the book of Romans is the most foundational in Christian doctrine.

The second foundational book in Christian doctrine is the gospel of John. I agree… we need the entire Bible including the OT to properly understand spiritual truth. This is only a thread… that you have an apparent free will to participate and learn what God has for each one of us, including myself. Who knows what God is doing on this forum site. Maybe some of the Protestants will become Catholics when we are done?

The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” - John 3Your opinion is errant, as I have already shown you. Do you have anything other than your own very fallible opinion that makes your case, or are we supposed to just accept your personal interpretation as the gospel truth just because you say so? I don’t see that happening.

Your thread is about the Gospel. You choose to make it about this supposed predominance of St. Paul’s writings and especially two of his letters, but as I have already pointed out, the “reformed” gospel is different from the one preached on the day of Pentecost and that preached to Saul at his conversion. That is what led him to his salvation, and it was decidedly not a gospel of Sola Fide. In this you mislead those who listen to you.

You will also hear St. James at judgement when he rises up and repeats before the Lord the first verse of his third chapter of that “little letter” that you discount. No doubt you too consider it “an epistle of straw”?:ehh:

Lord God, deliver your faithful from the teachings of errant men and by your Holy Spirit deal with the hearts of those who oppose the truth of Your most holy faith.