Follow
“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life,’ ” and “is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1324, 1407). And “the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration,” is “the heart and summit of the celebration” (1352). It is at the utterance of the consecration, the priest’s words, “This is My body,” and “This is the cup of My blood,” that the bread and wine are said to be “transubstantiated” into the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ:
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity. (1413)
Because the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is said to be present under the species of bread, the Roman Catholic Church has determined that it is unnecessary to administer the Lord’s Supper to the sheep under both species—bread and wine—so members of the flock typically receive the supper under the species of bread alone: “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” (1390).
It is in this manner that Roman Catholicism “honoureth Me with their lips” (Matthew 15:8) by “this do[ing] in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24), while at the same time “making the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13) by nullifying His Words which also say, “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
Then, after having the cup withheld from them, the sheep are told to worship the bread before eating it. We understand that it offends Roman Catholics deeply that we portray them as worshiping bread, but “bread” is exactly what Jesus (John 13:18), Paul (1 Corinthians 11:26-28) and Cleopas (Luke 24:18, 35) called it even after it was consecrated. And it is this—what Jesus, Paul and Cleopas all called bread—that Roman Catholics are instructed to adore.
Roman Catholics are taught to show reverence for the bread by not calling it bread, and by bowing to it prior to eating it. Bishop William K. Weigand of Sacramento, California, for example, issued a statement some time ago calling for more reverence toward Jesus in the Eucharist, requesting that Roman Catholics “…show reverence … by making a slight bow when receiving Communion, [and] by referring to the consecrated Species as the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ—and not ‘the bread and wine’ ” (The Wanderer, Volume 127, number 32, August 11, 1994, “Sacramento Bishop Offers Some Liturgical Reminders,” page 1).
We will continue to call it bread, for that is what it is, and we certainly see no need to bow to it, genuflect to it, or give to it the worship of latria, which is due to God alone. But that is precisely what Rome prescribes to the flock:
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” (1378)
The citation in paragraph 1378 is from Pope Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei, in which he also taught,
…the Catholic Church … has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone. As St. Augustine says: “It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so.” (Mysterium Fidei, 55)
The latria that Rome offers to the host is the same that God reserves for Himself. The Roman Catholic Church calls this “Eucharistic Adoration.” Thus Roman Catholics are taught that “Adoration is the highest form of worship given to God,” and “the Mass is the highest form of adoration that exists.”
Just to be clear, it is the host that is the object of the latria. It is called “host” because it is derived from the latin “hostia” for “victim,” referring to the person or thing being sacrificed. Christ is alleged to be the hostia in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and it is the host that is being worshiped in the photograph, above. Just watch EWTN some evening when Mass is being said, and you’ll see the people fall on their faces before the host when the words of consecration, “This is My body,” are said. It is at that moment, we are told, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ—and being God, it is to be worshiped with latria. So they say.
We do not believe that transubstantiation actually occurs, but because the transubstantiation does not take place does not mean that the host is not still the object of Roman Catholic adoration. It is. The worship paid to the host is no less latria because the transubstantiation did not occur. What is worshiped in the Mass is bread, and nothing more. And since the source and summit of the Christian life is ostensibly the Mass, and the highest form of adoration humans can offer to God is that adoration that Roman Catholics offer in the Mass, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the core of the Roman Catholic religion is bread worship.
But, says the Roman Catholic, Pope Paul VI said that Augustine practiced Eucharistic adoration, and therefore, so should Protestants. Before we Protestants run off to condemn Augustine for idolatry, it would be helpful to cite him in context and give some background on his words, “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it.” Is Augustine speaking of Eucharistic adoration? Hardly. Augustine denies Transubstantiation in the very commentary in which Paul VI quotes him.
When Augustine wrote “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it,” he was reading what we call Psalm 99:5, “Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy.” But Augustine was reading the Latin Vulgate. In the Vulgate it is Psalm 98:5, and it reads, “exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum et adorate scabillum pedum eius quia sanctus est,” or in Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims English, “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.” In the Hebrew it is God who is worshiped, “for He is holy” (Psalms 99:5) and we bow at His footstool to worship Him. In the Vulgate, it is the footstool that is adored, and Roman Catholics are taught to worship the footstool, “for it is holy.”
Augustine struggled here “because his Latin version was at two removes from the original language, being a Latin translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, Introduction by Michael Fiedrowicz, pg. 22, From The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Book III, vole 15, Exposition of Psalms 1-32.).
As Augustine wrestled, we can feel the tension introduced by the Latin version: “Adore His footstool? But that would be idolatry.” That’s what Augustine was trying to sort out. Why would he adore something that is not God, even if it is holy? If the earth is God’s footstool (Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 5:35), should Augustine worship the earth? Augustine tried to think his way out of the box, starting with the Latin mistranslation (“for it is holy) of the Greek translation (“for He is holy”) of the Hebrew (“He is holy”):
I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
We note that Augustine was wrestling with what appeared to be conflicting commands, and he determined that the only possible way he could “worship the earth” without committing idolatry was to worship Christ in the flesh. When he says we do not sin by worshiping but we sin by not worshiping, the object of His worship is Christ, not the Eucharist. And it is Christ Incarnate Whom we worship, for the Lamb Who was slain and sits at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:13) still bears the scars He received in the flesh (Revelation 5:6).
It almost hurts to look over Augustine’s shoulder as he thinks through this based on a mistranslation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew. But he manages to sort his way through, and concludes that “worship His footstool” must mean “worship Jesus.” We cannot approve of Augustine’s logic, but his conclusion is valid, nonetheless. But Paul VI’s use of Augustine suggests that Augustine taught that it was a sin not to worship the Eucharist. In what sense does Augustine’s commentary on Psalm 99:5 support Eucharistic Adoration?
The answer is “Not in any way,” for Augustine concludes his comments on Psalm 99:5 by soundly and explicitly rejecting the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” The Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53 is that Jesus taught that we are to eat the very flesh that hung on the cross, and drink the very blood that flowed from Jesus’ side. Paul VI taught that the Eucharist is
the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world—and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side. (Mysterium Fidei, 52)
But Augustine rejects this explicitly, and has Jesus explaining at John 6:63, “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8). Augustine reiterated this specific point in his treatise On Christian Doctrine. Regarding the sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—Augustine insisted that it is “a mark of weakness and bondage” to take the figures for what they signify:
“[O]ur Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. ” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 9)
This rule, Augustine continued, “guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 10). It is remarkable, is it not, that Paul VI used Augustine to support Eucharistic Adoration, in a commentary where Augustine taught the opposite of what Rome and her Apologists teach about Transubstantiation?
We, of course, do not rely on Augustine for our knowledge of the Word. We must remember the context in which Jesus spoke. He had just reminded the crowd following Him that they were unbelievers, pursuing Him only to have their bellies filled with bread (John 6:26-36). Therein Jesus instructed those that would truly follow Him that “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Coming after Him and believing His words was the one thing those followers would not do.
Rather than pursuing Jesus to see him multiply bread, they ought to come to Him and believe in what He was saying: “Eating” is coming to Him to hear the Word of God, and “drinking” is believing in the Word of God:
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)
Eating as coming to Him, and drinking as believing in Him, are the metaphors Jesus establishes before He ever says “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:54).
Thus, Roman Catholics attempt to follow Him in the Mass, but leave the Mass only with their bellies filled, but still not finding eternal life. Because they do not believe His Words—for they certainly do not believe “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25)—bread is all they have, and bread is all they worship. And thus it can be said of Rome, “he that believeth on me shall never thirst. … ye also have seen me, and believe not” (John 6:35-36).
Amazing article. Simply the truth. Thats why the writer of Hebrews warned the judaizers that the need for a physical altar, a physical sacrifice, and a physical Priest was a lack of faith. Christ’s altar Priesthood and sacrifice are in heaven. ” Without faith it is impossible to please him.”
Tim,
I love it! Especially this,;
“Thus, Roman Catholics attempt to follow Him in the Mass, but leave the Mass only with their bellies filled, ”
Bellies filled Tim? Filled? You slay me. Ha!
“…attempt to follow Him…” . By attempting to do God’s will, WE DO!
Ponder this; If the city council erects a bronze statute of Abraham Lincoln in front of the court house, are they honoring Lincoln? Or bronze? C’mon! Lincoln was a flesh and blood man, He had a beard and stove pipe hat. Not a hunk of metal Huh?
I have a Holy Hour from 9 to 10 every Monday night ( tonight my time ). I will think about your article while there, especially the part about Augustine “struggling” with the Eucharist.
He must have come to some conclusion because when linking Mary to the Host, he said, “SHE GAVE MILK TO OUR BREAD”.
Bellies filled,indeed! Ha! After Mass most Catholics make a B-line to the parish hall for donuts and coffee because their bellies have not been filled. You are so comical!
Jim,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The Lincoln illustration is quite good. I look at a statue of Lincoln, and I am reminded that there was a flesh and blood man who once led this country through a civil war. I do not look at the statue and say, “This is the flesh, blood, body and soul of Lincoln.” Just so with the bread of communion. I see the bread and wine, eat and drink it, and remember, “There was a Man, the son of God in the flesh, Who gave His life for me.” I do not look at it and say “This is my God.”
As regards Augustine, here is an illustration of his understanding of the bread: “Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly he is born again.” (Augustine, Tractate XXVI.1)
This was not in the context of the Lord’s supper, but rather when He had given the Holy Spirit. When one sees every reference to “bread” as a reference to the Lord’s Supper, it betrays his preconceptions about bread. That Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven, we Protestants believe with all our hearts. Just so, with Augustine’s Sermon on the Feast of the Nativity. Yes, Jesus is the bread come down from heaven. Yes, Jesus suckled at Mary’s breast. Yes, Mary fed our bread. But when Augustine preaches this on the Nativity, I deny that Augustine was advocating for a doctrine of Transubstantiation through Jesus’ words of consecration at the Last Supper. In context, rather, Augustine was marveling at just how lowly He became, Who had come to rescue us:
While we’re on the topic, Augustine provides some insight into the title, “Mother of God” in the same sermon:
Just food for thought. It is quite possible and logically consistent to acknowledge that Mary bore God in her womb, while at the same time acknowledging that “as God He was born without a mother.” Thus Augustine illustrates for us why “Theotokos” is not the linguistic equivalent of “Mother of God.”
Kind regards, as always,
Tim
Tim,
Rather than swap Augustine quotes about his use of “sacrament” and”figure” ( terms still influx at the time ), let me add a little something to the mix.
St. Ambrose was Augustine’s mentor. I am willing to bet he just may have influenced Augustine’s view of the Eucharist. Ambrose had a brother, St. Satyrus. Satyrus carried the Eucharist around in a little locket that hung from his neck.
You might find it enlightening to study Eucharistic reservation in the early Church. They also used to take it to prisoners and the sick.
You know Tim, I taught Catechism to kids about your little ones’ ages for a while. They loved to here the story of St. Tarsisius. Did your mom teach you that one? Maybe she can teach it to her grandchildren some day. They would love it. Maybe tell it to your wife and let her decide.
Thanks, Jim. You’ll get no argument from me that Eucharistic Adoration goes back a long way. The “evidence” for Eucharistic adoration from the time of the apostles until the 4th century is a little thin, though. Here is the “early history” of Eucharistic Adoration, from Eucharistic Miracles and Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints by Joan Carroll Cruz:
The hyperlink in the quote takes you to the Callistus frescoe. These data don’t exactly scream “Eucharistic Adoration,” do they?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I was going to tell you about the ‘Pastaphorium” but just skip it.
Instead, I want you to know that at my Holy Hour earlier this evening I prayed over and over for you
O SACRAMENT MOST HOLY, O SACRAMENT DIVINE,
ALL PRAISE AND ALL THANKSGIVING, BE EVERY MOMENT THINE
Like it or lump it!
Then you eat and drink damnation on yourself on account of failing to discern the Body.
An hour spent adoring a piece of bread is anything but “holy.”
Roman Catholics,
Give consideration to Tim’s post. Adoring the Eucharist includes adoring the POWER given to Priest’s in the act of consecration. This power is said to come from Christ, but the Priest’s flesh is not transubstantiated. Christ’s words alone do not accomplish the act. Power, with intent to use it, must be present.
But if Christ had power to change it, then this power came from his substance. Yet, the priest is not required to undergo a change in substance.
Eric, SSHHH! Please keep this under your hat. You could crumble our whole romish system of indulgences, cardinals, cathedrals, jesuits,candles, holy water, parish spaghetti dinners, idols and popish trickery if your brilliant deduction got out!
Jim,
Your priests utter ” MY” and they are not Jesus. “This is” means a substantial change, “MY” means…..SSHHH
Tim,
This is surely your magnum opus!
Now that I have had some time during my morning commute to digest what the brilliant theologian, scripture scholar and profound thinker, Kevin Falloni deems “amazing”. I must concur with Professor Falloni. This article is, indeed, amazing.
I am reminded of a lovely gothic city midway between my house and the shrine of Fatima called Santarem. In that town stands a chapel called the Church of the Miracle Most foreign visitors who come on tour or even pilgrims en route to Fatima are unaware of an event that took place there centuries ago.
I won’t try to detail the whole account here but the gist of the story goes like this;
A certain woman was distraught because her husband had lost his love for her and was seeking affection elsewhere. In desperation the poor woman sought out the services of a “bruxa” or gypsy sorceress. The witch told the woman to go to Mass and ,after receiving Christ in the Host, to secretly spit it out into a handkerchief. The woman was to bring the Host to the gypsy who would then desecrate it in a magic ceremony that would restore the husband’s interest in his wife.
I won’t ruin the story for any would be visitors to Santarem but I will only say that that Host is reserved in the church today for all to see.
Catholic Tradition tells us the Devil, that Ancient Serpent, the Prince of darkness, the Father of Lies, is named Lucifer because of his brilliance. He is to be avoided at all costs. Fascination with the occult, ouija boards and horoscopes can be used by the Evil One to entrap us. Dabbling in the black arts is to be feared and is forbidden by the Church.
You, Timothy, say otherwise. You say the Devil is a nincompoop. A buffoon. That crafty serpent is so inept he couldn’t hurt a fly.
How so? When and where do you make such a brash assertion?
Tim, you say Catholic devotion to the Host is demon inspired and that apparitions and are from the dark side. You say the Mass is satanic.
Well, Tim, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the Host is demonic, why do people inspired by the evil one steal the Host to desecrate and mock it?
Think about it. We all have heard of Black Masses. Have you ever heard of a Black Bible study? I dare say you haven’t.
The Devil hates the Eucharist. Yet you say he works at cross purposes by encouraging its cult. Any demon so silly as to promote the Eucharist and then undermine his best efforts by desecrating is nobody to be afraid of. He is a fool. We can laugh at him.
Tim, this article is like the ones in which you say that visitations of the Devil disguised as the Mother of Jesus, are just tricks to deceive and enslave mankind. Yet these visitation of what you claim to be evil have brought down the Iron Curtain, freed millions from the yoke of atheistic Communism, toppled the Aztec’s demonic cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism, cured the blind and the lame and brought hope to our world.
Which is it Tim? Your articles don’t make sense. You make the Devil look puny and stupid. Why would such a brilliant fallen angel shoot himself in the foot?
Again Tim, “A kingdom against itself cannot stand”.
Jim,
Consider Acts 16:16-18, in which a demon-possessed woman follows Paul and the rest saying that “These men …shew unto us the way of salvation.” Then Paul silences her:
Why would the devil recommend people listen to Paul? Is he divided? Or was there perhaps some tactical advantage to this approach?
Thanks,
Tim
For the same reason demons said to Jesus, “You are the Holy One of God!” They were terrified and spoke the truth because they were compelled to.
Roman Catholics also consider Romans 1:4 ‘who was declared son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness , Jesus christ our Lord. Revelations 1:17 Jesus says” I once was dead and now I am alive forever more. Please carefully note the glorious victory in the resurrection and pronouncement from the father Jesus Son of God justified. Catholics, I ask you He claims his titles Priest , Prophet and King and rules his church from above all heaven and earth, is He going to return to earth in a “host” victim to be crucified again an un bloody sacrifice. The bible teaches us this happened once at the consummation of the ages and it accomplished his resurrection and justification and ours. His declaration in Romans 1:4 is our declaration. We simply are asked to remember him as he is present with us in the supper thru the Spirit, word, and faith. The need for the physical is a lack of faith. CHRIST HAS RISEN! AMEN! Please let him off the cross and the altar.
He is indeed the Priest, but only because He is also the Victim, for He offers nothing but Himself, and without a Victim, there is no sacrifice, and without a sacrifice, there is no Priest.
Jesus never considered himself a victim. He said no one take his life from Him, he lays it down of his own volition. Rome has him stopped to the altar, an eternal victim, re breaking his body meriting extra righteousness. Let him off the cross and the altar, HE IS RISEN!, He is in heaven, and left us with the Spirit. And Christians sing the amen with the church as we look back on our justification. This is the good news “It is finished” Titus 3:5 ” He saved us, not on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness, but according to His ,mercy” 2 Corinthians 5:21 ” He made Him who knew no sin to become sin that we might become “the righteousness of God. Andrew it does not say we become righteousness inside, but we become the righteousness of God in Him. Christ does not become a sinner but takes on our sin by imputation and we get his righteousness credited to our account by imputation. Read Romans 5:19.
Tim and Kevin,
Why are you guys quoting scripture against me?
Why would two guys who don’t even use a complete Bible be arguing with a Catholic ( a Bible Christian )?
If you guys want to learn about demons, check out Tobit.
Jim, IMHO Rome forfeited its claim to being the church when it changed the gospel. And if your believing and following Roman doctrine you can in no sense be saved according to Scripture.
Jim, you such a student of history, but we don’t hear much from you on the influence of paganism on the Roman church thru the centuries. In fact many experts would characterize Rome as a pagan institution with a little Christianity thrown in. Queen of heaven, relics, communication with the dead, vestments, ceremonies etc., sacrifices on an altar by a magician, many experts consider the Roman church is really Pagan in origin. Certainly you don’t claim to know more then theses experts. Why should we believe your church? The Reformers said where the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered there lie the church. Does the Holy Spirit bring paganism in his church? We are supposed to test the spirits, right? Really anything apart from the word of God we should be leery of. Jude says the faith has been delivered once and for all. The Apostles have died, and the burden is on your human institution to prove succession which is found nowhere in Scripture. Romanism is much like Mormonism, it reduces Christ to something less than God, and it is based on works. All false Religions do these two things. All the cities and coinage and doctrines of the book of Mormon are no where to be found much like the fallacious claims of a Pagan institution. The true head lives and the true church lives in Him. Popes die, and how could the church live if its head were dead. Gene Wilder sang a song in Willie Wonka’s Chocolate factory. You know Jim, should we sing it together. Come with me and you’ll see a world of “Pure Imagination.”
Tim,
I’ve been doing apologetics and studying theology for many years now, and so I know nothing draws in a crowd of bickering like a post about Mary or the Eucharist. But that bickering just gets boring after a while, since it’s the same old stuff back and forth. The problem with these kinds of posts is that they only touch upon tangential issues, stuff that’s important but not the heart of the Protestant-Catholic dispute.
The only way to get to the heart of the matter is to recognize that the dispute is really about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, and even then it’s really only about Sola Fide because it doesn’t matter what a Catholic says against Sola Scriptura, the Protestant will not be phased so long as they think Scripture plainly teaches Sola Fide. So that’s the jugular that I go for, everything else is a waste of time.
I’d love it if you were to present your case on Sola Fide from the Bible, especially Romans 4. In my experience and study of well educated Protestants on the matter, when it comes to Sola Fide (especially Romans 4), that’s when they quickly begin to leave the Inspired Word of God and quietly substitute in Traditions of Men. I should know, because quite often whenever I bring up the inconvenient truths I’m welcomed with crickets chirping.
If you want a good place to start, look into Logizomai. I’ve consulted almost 50 Protestant scholars on the matter (mostly Reformed) and they’ve all either lied about what the Bible says or they’re downright ignorant.
Thank you, Nick,
And I believe the dispute is really about Sola Ecclesia, which is Rome’s Axiom and Rome’s conclusion based on that Axiom. Utter circularity. I know you want me to comment on Romans 4, because that is the only thing you want to talk about. I get that.
And I always ask Roman Catholics to provide an infallible list of infallible papal statements—the truth is (and honest Roman Catholics know this) Roman Catholics believe the pope speaks infallibly but cannot provide a reliable list of infallible statements, because to do so would be to acknowledge that a fundamental part of their faith exists outside of the Deposit of Faith. (The Deposit does not contain that list). Without the infallible knowledge of what the Pope is saying infallibly, the Roman Catholic is left trusting that the Church knew what it was doing when it declared him infallible, but unable to trust the pope because they don’t know if each statement is infallible.
Thus he is left trusting his Church without knowing what the Church is teaching. That is Sola Ecclesia, and in my opinion, Romans 4 is just tangential to that.
Tim
P.S.: I know what crickets sound like, too.
Tim,
You don’t seem to understand the role of Infallibility as it relates to Dogma. The fact is, without Infallibility operating in some form, you have no dogmas. The reason is because not everything that is written in the Bible is Dogma, so someone has to go through and tell you what is and is not. Such decrees would not themselves be part of the Deposit of Faith in so far as the decree comes after the Deposit was given. The Decree merely says that teaching X is part of the Deposit.
This is the underlying reason why Protestantism doesn’t really have dogmas, but rather human opinions. The doctrines you put faith in are scholarly opinions. Nobody can tell another person what is binding, and anyone can dissent from the Westminster whenever they feel like it without any impact on their salvation or the content of Faith.
The point of Christianity isn’t to have a list of infallible statements, but the mechanism for answering questions definitively should be there (and is in Catholicism). Similarly, Protestantism doesn’t have any official list of Essentials vs Non-Essentials, but the catch is that they have no mechanism for saying what is or is not an Essential.
In my experience in aplogetics with Protestants, if I can get them to see that their teachings on Sola Fide are completely man-made, then this opens them to the possibility that maybe they’re wrong in other areas. Until then, other areas are a waste of time discussing because the Protestant is continually presupposing they’ve got a lock on Justification, when they really don’t.
I would add that for a position to be sound, it must not beg the question or put a burden upon the opponent that doesn’t also apply to oneself.
So in situations like the one you gave where you attacked infallibility, you must apply the same criteria to your own position to see if your own position has a more coherent basis. It’s a double standard to go around saying Sola Ecclesia cannot answer X if Sola Scriptura cannot answer X.
Nick, you added,
Do you understand that I was responding to Jason Stellman’s criticism of Sola Scriptura? Are you willing to go to Jason Stellman now and tell him, “So in situations like the one you gave where you attacked Sola Scriptura, you must apply the same criteria to Rome to see if our own position has a more coherent basis. It’s a double standard to go around saying Sola Scriptura cannot answer X if Rome herself, with all of her councils, decrees and popes cannot answer the same X.”
What I have demonstrated on Jason’s blog is the false security Roman Catholics have in their “infallible” Magisterium. They gain no certainty by having an infallible pope, if they cannot possibly know when he is speaking infallibly. Suddenly, when asked for a list of infallible papal statements, Roman Catholics conclude that the pope isn’t that important because we have councils for that, or they agree that they still have to rely on the Holy Spirit to nudge you toward which statements are are ex cathedra, and which are not.
How is this different from Protestants who are “nudged by the Holy Spirit” to accept the Scriptures?
At the core, I am not using this argument to show the superiority of Sola Scriptura over Sola Ecclesia. My objective is simply to expose the Axiom from which you reason. Your Axiom is Sola Ecclesia, and the conclusion at which you arrive from that assumption is Sola Ecclesia, which is the very definition of circularity: In circular reasoning, “The argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises.”
My Axiom is Sola Scriptura, but I do not use that Axiom to arrive at Sola Scriptura. I use that Axiom to arrive at the gospel, faith, the church, the nature of God, the salvation of men, etc…. Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria. You may disagree with my conclusion, and you may even disagree with my axiom. But the syllogism is not formally circular.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I haven’t been following Jason’s thread, and I don’t think you want this thread turned into a Sola Scriptura thread, so I won’t say much more here.
What I will say is that you still don’t seem to understand my point which is that in Catholicism the Magisterium is the mechanism by which dogmas are presented to us, where as no such mechanism exists in Protestantism. I’m speaking on the level of principle here. If there is any question on any given doctrine, there are sources to consult to see what Rome has said in addressing that question, whereas there are no such sources to consult in Protestantism. (As I noted earlier, it’s not enough to say you have the Bible, because the Bible doesn’t tell you which of it’s teachings are Essential; that’s a human evaluation.)
You are confusing ‘certainty’ with ‘mechanism’. This is why my argument isn’t circular: I’ve shown that without a Magisterium, you cannot have dogmas at all. A religion without dogma is hardly a religion, but rather simply a movement.
Nick, thanks for your comment. You wrote,
We shall see.
Very well. Since the pope “is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals,” and since not everything that comes from the mouth of the Pope is Dogma, someone has to go through all the papal statements and tell you what is and is not.
Who does that for you, Nick?
Thanks, for your comment,
Tim
Tim,
All dogmatic issues tend to be pretty clearly laid out somewhere or another, at least all the major stuff. There are certain doctrines which might not reach the level of dogma, but depending on what the Magisterium has said we can have a certain level of opinion on. If and when the Magisterium clarifies, then we’re bound to the clarification.
So let’s take some doctrines like divorce, infant baptism, Transubstantiation, etc. The Maigsterium has spoken pretty definitively on these issues. In contrast, Protestantism hasn’t and cannot speak definitively on them, but rather merely form opinions. They used to have a quasi-dogmatic status when the mainline denominations still had power, but now they’ve all been reduced to ‘non-essentials’, which is quite telling.
Nick,
As to your comment,
But our interaction began with a request that you provide a list of infallible papal statements. I was not asking about a list of infallible Magisterial dogmas. In other words, I am still talking about the mechanism. A list of infallible papal statements would look like this:
Ineffabilis Deus
Munificentissimus Deus
Unam Sanctam
…
I agree that in Rome, the mechanism by which you receive dogma is the Magisterium. A part of that Magisterium is the pope who is alleged to speak infallibly. But if you have no infallible way of receiving dogma from him, then the mechanism by which you are to receive dogma serves no useful purpose.
You continue:
This is precisely my point on papal infallibility. If the pope speaks infallibly, you do not go to other sources to consult, for Pastor Aeturnus explicitly states “that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent.” When the pope, as part of the mechanism, issues an ex cathedra statement, it stands on its own—it is not something you cross check against the sources to find out if it is true.
We consult the Scriptures.
You continued:
Nick, I could not have said it better myself. The mechanism in Rome does not tell you which of its papal statements is infallible, and therefore leaves it up to you to determine which ones are ex cathedra, and that’s a human evaluation. Without being able to determine which of the Pope’s statements is infallible, you can’t know which ones are dogma and which ones are just opinion. And a religion with a teacher who cannot teach is not a religion—it’s just a group of people claiming to have a mechanism that protects their teacher from error, but unable to determine what he is teaching them.
And finally,
Rather, you are confusing “all teachings of the magisterium” with its much, much smaller subset of “ex cathedra papal statements.” I am only asking you for a list of the latter. The fact that you provided a list of “dogmas” which have been provided definitively by the mechanism, like “divorce, infant baptism, Transubstantiation,”—none of which, to my knowledge—are the topics of any ex cathedra papal statements— indicates to me that you do not understand my question.
I am not asking for a list of infallible teachings of Rome. I am only asking for a list of infallible papal statements.
Why is that so hard for you to provide?
(That’s a rhetorical question—I know quite well why you are not able to provide one.).
Thanks,
Tim
Nick, i read your article on Logizomai. Few questions: You said faith has a righteous quality. What righteous quality does faith have? 2. You say faith holds the equivalent quality of, say, keeping all the commandments? Paul’s argument for justification is an antithesis between faith and works, so how can faith be equivalent to moral transformation or keeping the commandments? “to the one who does not work” not that of yourselves” He eliminates anything meritorious as coming from ourselves. Also in Romans 4 you say “is speaking in terms of a ledger” And your point is faith is reckoned the same way as the wage. But he says the gift isn’t like what is due. There is a strict antithesis between gift and debt. There is no other way to understand this then to say God counts righteous, people who are unrighteous by faith, apart from works. Hope your well my friend.
Kevin,
I don’t want to derail Tim’s thread. I only wanted to make some brief comments as to what I believe the real problem is and that everything else, regardless how important, is really secondary.
I would love it if Tim made a post on Romans 4 or justification in general. He’ll be in for a nice treat.
Nick,
Since the Roman Catholic Magisterium has never infallibly interpreted Romans 4, may I presume that what you wish to share with me is a matter of your own private interpretation and not the official position of the Church?
There is a list of 15 verses which Rome has infallibly interpreted here. I did not see any verses from Romans 4 on the list. Nor do I know if the person who posted the list knows if it is an infallible list.
I’m pretty sure that list is not right, because I have a letter from the Very Reverend Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Secretariat for Doctrine and Doctrinal Practices, in Washington, D.C., and when he was asked which verses Rome had interpreted infallibly, he consulted with an “eminent theologian,” who then deferred to Raymond Brown’s article on Hermeneutics in the New Jerome Bible Commentary, and provided the following:
I don’t know why he mentioned “seven passages,” and then only listed 6. Maybe he meant to include Romans 4 there. I don’t think so, because I have another list of passages from another source, and that list not only doesn’t include Romans 4, but it doesn’t include some of the passages that di Noia got from the “eminent theologian” who got them from Raymond Brown. And I don’t know why some Roman Catholics believe the Church has interpreted 15 verses and others believe the Church has only interpreted 7. Maybe eight more got interpreted infallibly between when I received this letter from di Noia, and when the 15 verses got posted on Christian Forums.
My point in all this is that (to borrow your language) “In my experience in apologetics with Catholics, if I can get them to see that their teachings on Sola Ecclesia are completely man-made, then this opens them to the possibility that maybe they’re wrong in other areas. Until then, other areas are a waste of time discussing because the Catholic is continually presupposing they’ve got a lock on Revelation, when they really don’t.”
So when you have the infallible Roman Catholic interpretation on Romans 4, and not just your personal interpretation, do let me know.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim,
Rome doesn’t have to speak infallibly on any passage of Scripture for me to interpret it. The only rule is that I must interpret the text in a way that conforms to dogmas already laid down. You or anyone else is then free to disagree with my interpretation on grammatical grounds, logical grounds, or by comparing it to known dogmas. If you can make a case that I’ve erred on grammatical/logical grounds, then my interpretation should be rejected as unsound. And if you can make a case that my interpretation conflicts with a Catholic dogma, it should be rejected as incompatible with my Faith.
The beauty about my exegesis on Romans 4 is that a non-Reformed Protestant could present them and they’d be just as valid. So hiding behind the smokescreen of “Rome hasn’t interpreted Romans 4” is really a sorry excuse for not confronting the plain facts I present in my apologetics articles. (I’ve been through this enough with Protestants that I know that most of them have no interest nor ability to take on my claims, so they will obfuscate until both sides are too worn out to get to the actual *substance* of my claims.)
Nick,
Thanks for getting back to me. You wrote that “hiding behind the smokescreen of ‘Rome hasn’t interpreted Romans 4’ is really a sorry excuse for not confronting the plain facts I present in my apologetics articles.”
What makes you think I have even read your apologetics articles? I am just trying to establish your axiom. Your Axiom of Sola Ecclesia is the real issue, and everything else is secondary to that.
Thanks,
Tim
Nick, You threw a gauntlet down on Sola Scriptura and Tim has been talking about Papal decrees.
Why doesn’t he prove his position rather than attacking yours.
Even if he topples the Papacy, Sola Scriptura is still false and then we are really without a light to guide us.
Jim,
Nick didn’t throw down the gauntlet. All he has done is tell me that he would love it if I write on Romans 4 so he can poke holes in it. Kevin read Nick’s article and responded with questions, and I merely asked if he was bringing his own private interpretation, which he clearly is.
On a careful reading of my post, you will see that I cited no papal decrees. I cited the Nuncio who consulted and “eminent theologian” who consulted Raymond Brown who confirmed that Rome has only officially interpreted 7 verses. Romans 4 is not among them. How can I be sure that Nick is bringing me the “official Roman” position?
My question to him was whether he was bringing his own private interpretation of the Scriptures, or if he was bringing the Church’s infallible interpretation. I see that he is bringing the former.
Nick likes to say that we should not be talking about anything else except Romans 4 and its implications for sola fide, and everything else is really secondary to that. That is his prerogative, and he has a blog for advancing that hypothesis. I do not subscribe to it. I think we should talk about Sola Ecclesia, and everything else is secondary to that. That, you’ll agree, is my prerogative.
Thanks,
Tim
This might be helpful on Justification.
In establishing the official position of Rome, I will be citing _Catechism Of The Catholic Church_ (CCC), 1995 which has an introductory essay by John Paul II (thus giving this treatment of the subjects contained therein his own imprimatur). In establishing the official position of Westminster, I will confine my citations to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)
1. The Nature of Justification
a. According to Rome justification is a change in the moral nature of a sinner. According to Rome justification is not a judicial act of God whereby He objectively imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and declares him to be righteous on the ground of Christ’s perfect righteousness, but rather a moral transformation by God whereby He subjectively cleanses the heart of sin and corruption and renews man within by giving to man the righteousness of God. This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification. Just as our sin was imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed (not infused) to the believing sinner.
Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (CCC, p. 536, #1989).
With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC, p. 536, #1991).
It [i.e. justification–GLP] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (CCC, p. 536, #1992).
Justification entails the sanctification of his whole being (CCC, p. 537, #1995).
Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).
b. According to Westminster justification is not a subjective moral transformation, but rather an objective judicial act whereby God imputes to the believing sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ and declares him to be righteous. Westminster correctly distinguishes justification and sanctification.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).
Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).
2. The Ground of Justification
a. According to Rome, in justification “the righteousness of God” in a generic sense is bestowed, rather than “the righteousness of Christ” in a specific sense imputed. This hides the truth that Christ acted as our Mediator in fulfilling all righteousness for us, and that it is specifically His righteousness as our divine-human surety that is the ground of our justification.
The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (CCC, p. 535, #1987).
Move by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high (CCC, p. 536, #1989).
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 (CCC, p. 536, #1991).
The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God (CCC, p. 544, #2017).
It [i.e. justification–GLP] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us (CCC, p. 544, #2020).
b. According to Westminster, the only ground of our justification is the righteousness of Christ (i.e. His active obedience in fulfilling the law of God and His passive obedience in satisfying the infinite justice of God upon the cross).
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).
Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).
3. The Means of Justification
a. According to Rome, faith plus Baptism (and other works associated with sanctification since justification involves sanctification as well).
The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (CCC, p. 535, #1987).
Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith (CCC, p. 536, #1992).
Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).
It [i.e. justification–GLP] is granted to us through Baptism (CCC, p. 544, #2019).
b. According to Westminster, there is only one instrumental means of justification: faith alone. That is not to say that one who is justified will not exercise good works. It is only to say that faith in Christ alone justifies before God, but saving faith will always be evidenced by the natural fruit of obedience to God’s will.
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (WCF 11:2).
4. The Nature of Saving Faith
a. According to Rome, saving faith consists of mere assent to the truthfulness of that which is revealed by God i.e. is agreeing with God that what is revealed is true.
Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent (CCC, p. 537, #1993).
In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace” (CCC, p. 48, #155).
B. According to Westminster, saving faith includes both knowledge and assent, but it necessarily includes appropriating, receiving, and resting in the promises of salvation as one’s own.
By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of god himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace (WCF 14:2).
4. The Salvation of Non-Christians
a. According to Rome, non-Christians may achieve eternal salvation.
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too may achieve eternal salvation (CCC, p. 244,, #847).
b. According to Westminster, there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ.
Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God (WCF 10:4).
And by what authority does the Westminster Confession speak? The Biblical solution to a doctrinal dispute is to call a Council of the bishops to resolve the matter (Acts 15). Yet, you appeal to the authority of a church without bishops. Why then, should anyone believe its proclamations to be sound doctrine?
Andrew said ” yet you appeal to a church without Bishops” Do you mean Roman Catholic Bishops? The word of God is our only infallible authority to which the WCF submitted itself. See Andrew we both have an axiom. You start off with the axiom that the Roman church is infallible and end up with because the Roman church is infallible. your argument is circular. We start with the axiom the Word of God is the only infallible authority and end up with the Roman church is not. We both exercise our fallible judgment informed by the Spirit. You believe in a church and we believe in the Word. But a church cannot save you, only the Word can.
Walt,
Could you state (IN YOUR OWN WORDS!) either of those two documents you reference?
No. You can’t. If you could, you would know that no one is saved without Christ or without the Catholic Church.
Tim, sorry about too many quotes, but he mentioned that he was interested in “justification in general” so I thought I would share with him the biblical distinctions between the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church…Westminster vs. Rome!
“… and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that He is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men.” (Charles H. Spurgeon from the sermon ‘Free Will A Slave’ (1855) referring to Luther’s book The Bondage of the Will).
Thanks, Walt,
All the quotes are fine. That Spurgeon is quite good. I edited the Spurgeon compilation called Geese in their Hoods, and the back cover quotes him pretty plainly, “Essence of lies, and quintessence of blasphemy, as the religion of Rome is, it nevertheless fascinates a certain order of Protestants….” (“The Religion of Rome,” from the January 1873 Sword and Trowel.)
Many people today are not aware of his strong feelings on this topic, because his works have been sanitized of such sentiments for modern readers.
Tim
Oh Jesus, my Lord and my merciful Redeemer ! how can I relieve or quench the thirst that consumes thee ? ” Hear me,” says Jesus from the cross : ” Leave the sins that so often wound me; forsake thy evil companions, who may cause the loss of thy soul, and who daily offend and displease me ; approach my cross by continual meditations on my sufferings; be frequent in prayer ; receive me often in holy Communion ; abstain from railleries and slander; pardon the injustice and injuries inflicted on thee, and keep silence when angry. Behold whereby thou mayest quench my thirst and alleviate my sufferings ; behold how thou mayest refresh me ; behold wherein thou mayest console me.”
19th Century Jesuit Priest
Hi, Debbie,
Thanks for your participation, and for this comment. This citation from Jean Crasset comes from his Christian Considerations, which is interesting to me. His “consideration” for the first Saturday of Advent is that we should appease the anger of God through Mary:
It not only has God still angry at me, but it has Mary functioning in a High Priestly role by offering the sacrifice to God. Christ was at the same time the Priest and the Lamb. It is an odd representation indeed to have Mary offering the sacrifice on the altar.
But he goes on to say,
If Fr. Dominic Domenico, O.P., is to be believed, the Mother hopefully refuses nothing to her husband, Joseph, who is the Mediator of all Graces that flow from Mary. So Fr. Domenico represents Joseph in his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church.
What I don’t understand is how Joseph can be the end of the line. If Joseph is holy, sinless, without blame, and was cleansed of original sin immediately after his conception, shouldn’t I need to go through someone else to get to Joseph? St. Thomas, perhaps? Joseph is awfully holy, and I must need a mediator to plead my case to him. Do you know of anyone who could act as my mediator between me and Joseph, so Joseph can act as a mediator between him and Mary, who acts as a mediator between Joseph and Jesus, who acts as a mediator between Mary and God the Father?
Am I being too bold to go directly to Joseph, who never sinned? Who would you recommend as a mediator between me and him?
Thanks,
Tim
Fr Dominic is so cool. Tell him Hi from a former Holy Rosary parishioner. I have his book on Joseph and love it.
PS I don’t mean to pull his covers, but Fr. D was the heir to the Rice a Roni or some other pasta stuff fortune but gave it up to be a priest.
Walt, For Paul the antithesis between faith and works, and gift and debt is not ambiguous. Its the difference between God declaring and unrighteous person righteous by faith, apart from works versus a transfusion of dna that must be kept in tack. Nowhere is scripture are we ever told we are justified by love or infused soul substance that must be increased by good works. In fact Paul says the complete opposite, we are justified apart for all works and any human effort. Rom.4:5, Eph 2:8. Justification is immediate and complete in Scripture. There isn’t salvation on the installment plan. Words like adopted, justified, heir, sealed in the Spirit, an inheritance that can never go away can’t mean a life process of climbing to perfection. Because in this life we always stand condemned by our sin. Being justified by the Law requires perfection according to Scripture as Paul tell us in Galatians 3:10. “Cursed is anyone who does not abide in ALL things written in the Law. The gospel is for the unrighteous and not the righteous. He does not declare bad people good but legally just because He bore the penalty of our law keeping. Gal 3:10, Romans 5:19,, Romans 8:1-4, Romans 7:6, 2 Cor 5:21. In Philippians 3:9 Paul says being found in Him not having a righteousness of my own from the Law, but a righteousness that comes from God thru faith. Paul relinquishes all his righteousness into one column and says he is found in Him with a righteousness that is from God thru faith. Our righteousness isn’t derived from his righteousness , it is his righteousness. For Rome they have fatally conflated two covenants. Jesus becomes a softer Moses with an parred down law, as if loving your neighbor and God with all of our heart soul and mind wasn’t difficult in itself. But for Paul Law and gospel were antithetical in salvation. Paul says apart from the law the righteousness of God has been revealed. Totally eliminating any law or works or anything from coming from ourselves as being able to justify us before God. Faith is not only the entry point of salvation for Paul, but covers the whole of salvation as he so aptly tells us in Galatians 3:1-6. Ephesians tells us that He chose us before the foundation of the world that we would be holy and blameless before Him. All of salvation is forensic and is undergirded by our justification. We are not only declares justified, but sanctified and glorified. The golden chain of Romans 8:30. Those he predestined he called, and those he called he justified, those he justified he glorified. ” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect, it is God who justifies.”
That should be he bore the penalty of our law breaking.
For Protestants God saves and he saves complexly. For a Romanist God helps them save themselves.
Well, yes and no.
For Catholics, Christ saves all men, completely objectively.
Men save themselves subjectively ( or damn themselves.)
For Protestants, God saves some robots. He condemns most robots.
The Gospel according to Kevin.
In the beginning the great Robot maker madeth some robots and ordered them to runneth for 24 hours. In his wisdom Der Robo Miester installeth 24 hour batteries into some and 10 hour batteries into others. Then he inscribeth the serial numbers of the 24 hour battery robots in his great book of life.
In the fullness of time he sent his son in the likeness of a robot so he could love the 24 hour hour battery robots.
At the end off the world, the angels will goeth out and gather up the robots. Der Meister will openeth the great book and be shockest to see only the 24 hr. ones have their names down. The all wise and all powerful meister will then take those 24 hr. robots into glory with him and program them with a chip to be happy praising his goodness and wisdom for all eternity. The 10 hr robots will be casteth back into the melting pot where there will be wailing and grinding of gears for their failure to run for 24 hours. Let all who heareth bendeth their knee before this great and august mystery of election! Amen. Amen. and Amen.
Walt, you said” whoever in his soul believes that man in his own free will can turn to God, could not have been taught by God” This my dear brother for me is the absolute truth. For we Reformed understand our utter depravity and corruption and understand there is nothing in us that could choose God. Romanism has come up with a scheme for the natural man to be able to chose God, with a little help. Ephesians says while we were dead in sins he made us alive with Christ. Psalms says salvation is from the Lord. Augustine said even our best works are stained by sin. Only his merits can stand before the bar of God. My only hope is to stand in his righteousness by faith. To think how Joshua must have felt having been stained in sin and being condemned by satan, and God comes to him and cloaks him in the white robes of righteousness without a move on the part of Joshua. The grace and the mercy of God given as a gift by simple faith. ” for the wages of sin is death but the FREE Gift of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Good Morning Tim,
I got your post on Jason’s blog and posted the following:
Tim Kauffman,
What a whitewashing! Of course Protestants don’t believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation. You know perfectly well I was not demanding that you bend your knee to Rome and say you do.
Anyone who thinks I was unfair to Mr. Kaufman can click on his site and read.
DEATH WAFER appears repeatedly on various threads. He asp defends the use of Hocus Pocus.
On your site, you do NOT say Catholics worship the Host which you consider it to be just bread. If you said that, I would not be pulling your covers. You say much, much more.
You and your blogger guest, K.F, say we worship bread, Twice, in responses to me, you have said that your Catholic mother worships bread and you are teaching your child that their grandmother worships bread.
You have accused me of bread idolatry about a dozen times to date.
Too many times to remember, I have told you Catholics and Lutherans worship Christ under the appearances of bread. You won’t have it.
You insist we Catholics are idolaters and worship bread. You do not say we mistakenly worship Christ under the species of bread. I could copy and paste scores of examples where you say we worship bread, not the Host, which little old you, as a sincere Protestant hold to be mere bread. You are a big fat fibber, Tim. You are just ashamed to show your true colors here.
I bring all this up on this blog only to warn everyone that you play fast and lose with the truth in order to taunt, trick or win. Catholics here should not get too involved with tracking down something you say on Pope Gregory because, at the end of the day, you were only playing a trick. After scour the net for the facts and presenting them to you, you will just ask another wild goose chase question.
You are not concerned about the facts. You are trying to confuse and trick.
God only knows your motives.
You have a great day.
Thanks, Jim,
In order to save you the trouble, here is Pope St. Gregory the Great in his Commentary on Job, chapter 34 (of his commentary):
No tricks here, Jim.
Tim
Thanks Tim, And great research finding this. Of all the guys searching for just the right weapon to destroy popery, you found it!
Seriously Tim, I am sure you forged this. Anybody who would say “Death Wafer” or tell his kids to revile their grandmother is capable of any skulduggery to meet his ends.
Have a great Holy Thursday ( You know, to comemorate the the Last Supper when Christ instituted the…
“but the FREE Gift of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Dearest Kevin,
It is in absolute truth a free gift to us, eternal life . . .
and is in absolute truth, freely given . . .
but in absolute deepest truth, Somebody had to pay for it.
Freedom isn’t free – it always comes at a great price, usually a tortuous, bloody price.
I remember you always saying that about your father and World War II and how you never wanted to forget or take for granted the freedom he fought for.
How do you teach people to never forget or take for granted their freedom? How does a nation teach their citizens about this freedom? Look at the War Memorials in Washington D.C.
But even then, walking through these memorials doesn’t quite do it. Somehow the citizens have to experience what it took to have this freedom to really appreciate and love their freedom. We absolutely don’t save ourselves, God saves. God loves us so much that He not only give us the gift, but wants us to open it and then most importantly EXPERIENCE and SHARE the gift. In other words, live out our salvation. Live the truth of salvation here on earth so that others may see and believe. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friend. We have to live (breathe, move, be alive) in our salvation. To put on Christ means to put on the cross. This is one of the reason this is called Holy Week – we walk as closely to our Lord as His grace allows us to fully appreciate our deliverance . . . ah, what a gift, to be allowed to experience our Lord’s passion, His passionate love for us, His laying down His life for us . . .
“It is in pardoning that we are truly pardoned,
It is giving that we truly receive,
and it is dying that we are truly born to eternal life.”
And then in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist over and over and over again – not the death of our Lord, but the PASSION of HIS LOVE. His grace allows us to experience Him and be one with Him here on earth.
” its absolutely a free gift to us, eternal life an absolute truth freely given” Wake up, your church doesn’t teach this. Rome says faith plus a life of cooperating with love make you finally right before God. Romans 4:3 the wage isn’t credited as a GIFT, but as what is due. Pay Catholics their wage. “But to the one who does not work” God justifies only those who do not work. ” but believes in Him that justifies the UNGODLY” God justifies ungodly people who believe in Him. ” his faith is credited was righteousness” the passive and active obedience of Christ is credited to the account of the believer who has faith. ” Somebody had to pay for it” Thats right, Christ payed for it by becoming our substitute 2 corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:10, Romans 5:17-19. All we can do is receive it ( John 1:12, Romans 10:9-10) and be thankful. Ephesians says we have been saved by grace thru faith, it is NOT THAT OF OURSELVES , it is a GIFT, not a RESULT OF WORKS. We have been saved unto good works. Your church does not say this. You are saved by faith plus works, and this is a false gospel of the medieval church. No claim to infallibility can overcome a false gospel. God doesn’t save a man by sacramental efficacy , but by simple faith. Think about it hard, your soul depends on this.
Somehow you don’t see that we agree, Jesus paid the price.
I am afraid of you.
I am afraid of your persecution, I am afraid of your misunderstanding, I am afraid of the anger and rage within you. I think you would likely do me harm if you could.
Instead of laying down your life for me, you would gladly take it from me.
Not only would you bruise me and beat me, but you would do it all for the glory of God. This is not good, this is not love, this is not the Holy Spirit.
And the passion continues ……..
Debbie,
Please let me know if you feel threatened by Kevin. I know that passions and tempers may flare from behind a keyboard and a computer screen, and the words we type are not always representative of the words we would use and the emotions we would have in person. Perhaps Kevin’s words fall into that category. If you have received any credible threats toward your person as a result of this blog, please let me know so I can address it.
Thanks for your participation.
Tim
Tim, I am scared of Kevin. Big time. He reminds me of the Caspar Milquetoast dude who is slapped down by his boss, his wife, everyone he knows. But, when he can get behind the wheel of his car, put on his Italian racing gloves, roll up the tinted windows so nobody can see his face, cranks up some heavy metal, and heads out on the freeway to make everyone pay for the way his boss pushes him around…I might be crossing at the cross walk when Kevin comes roaring up the road.
Kevin is probably a mouse vis a vis, but behind a computer keyboard he is King Kong!
You recently made a play to put a wedge in my marriage. You are cunning and dishonest. You went right after my wife where she is weak. Her family. She would never go to Greece with you and give you any confirmation in your false religion. I know what you were attempting. By her going it would denounce all that I have said to you. Stay out of my marriage. Leni believes like me that you are in a false religion.
Leni, Since you are Kevin’s “Better Half”, try getting him on the decaff. My wife tries limiting my blogging time too as she thinks it makes me grumpy. ( Not so! Only your guy gets me livid. )
Go to Greece with Debbie. Leave Kev home to blog. When you come back from a well deserved rest from him, show Kevin the scapular, rosary and medals Debbie gave you when you converted.
Telling you the truth about your church is the greatest love I can give you, but you don’t see it. This isn’t personal, its spiritual. You think Jason is a hero and I think he is apostate. We don’t agree.
Debbie, you have engaged me, even though I have asked you to stop. Please leave me alone.
Kevin,
I don’t know of the circumstances you describe about the trip to Greece or the offline communications between participants of this blog and your immediate family, so I cannot judge the matter. If this blog has created a venue for communications that are unhealthy for you or your family, please let me know. I think your comment that “this is not personal, but spiritual” is helpful, but it is best for us to keep the offline communications separate from the online discussion. The only context the readers have is the original post and the comments to it. It is very difficult, therefore, for the rest of us to contextualize your offline interaction with participants on this blog.
Thanks for your participation,
Tim
Kevin You Philandering rat! You are married to Leni and now you are trying to engage Debbie, are you?
Leni should make you sleep on the sofa for a month!
You Protestant guys have no respect for marriage as a SACRAMENT!
Tim, Debbie and her husband were friends of ours, in fact she was in our wedding and was my wife’s best friend growing up. we had been friends for 30 years. A year ago i asked her and her husband to read a paper i had written on justification in the RC in scripture vs the bible. It didn’t go well. They are cradle Catholics and deeply entrenched in a Catholic community. In fact her husband is a dean of a Catholic high school. They reacted not well to my paper and ever since it has been a spiritual battle. she has prayed a 2000 year old exorcism prayer on me 5 times. Don’t think that standing up for the truth has no costs. I’m living proof. I have lost all my catholic friends. But after listening to a sermon by MacArthur a year ago, he said there is nothing more unloving than to let someone perish without the truth. And I decided I can’t just sit back and let Catholics not hear the truth. Its cost me greatly. But I don’t care. I can’t tell you how thankful I am for your site. And i think God is using you greatly, and your posts on Jason’s site have been very effective.
Kevin, Debbie’s husband should give you a good punch in the nose.
Tim, I have never threatened Debbie, we were like brother and sister. I can assure you she is using this as a tactic. I have asked her on many occasions to please quit communicating with me. I am an upstanding man in my church and have never threatened anyone, nor will I ever.
Debbie, Mr. Debbie and Leni,
Have you ever tried an intervention on Kevin? In a non threatening manner? Tell him you want to take him out for an ice cream to get him in the car. Drive to a peaceful setting like a park or a forest. Once there, leave him there and drive away fast!
Tim, if you will look at the posts here for a long period i have not engaged her. She has engaged me. She got me thrown off of Jason’s site. I promise you i will not engage her again when she addresses me like she did this morning.
Kevin, shame on you for saying Debbie got you thrown off Jason’s site. I like to think I did that. I think you should be thrown off this one too but Tim needs you to say the outrageously gross things you say as he can’t and remain looking civilized.
Tim, also i have no offline participation with anyone. Debbie and I know each other personally. And she is trying to get me thrown off this site too. She lives in a different city, but she is tying to cause problems in my marriage. My wife and I are fine. I can’t go into the details but i have asked her to stop communicating with me and she hasn’t. I will promise you Tim. I will no longer engage her on here.
Ok, thanks, Kevin. It’s helpful to have your perspective. You’re certainly welcome to continue participating, as are the other participants. I just needed to make sure the blog conversations were not putting anyone in what could be construed as imminent danger.
Best regards,
Tim
Believe me, Kevin, needs no help from me to get thrown off of any site. I have never ever even suggested it to anyone at anytime.
So interesting that today is Spy Wednesday commerating the day Judas sold out our Lord in the guise of necessity for the ‘church’.
He thought there was nothing more unloving than to let someone perish without the truth. He decided he couldn’t sit back and let the Apostles and Jews not hear the truth. It cost Judas greatly – in fact it cost him his life and salvation.
I believe he took his life because he did care.
Thanks, Debbie. I appreciate your participation.
Tim
Debbie, Kevin and Tim don’t want to hear about “Spy Wednesday” as it is a romish day.
Your husband is a dean of a catholic school? WOW! My wife’s cousin is the president of the most prestigious Catholic school in her state and is a complete liberal who has tried to bring in gayness, planned parenthood, etc. We shun her and her husband as they have tried destroying me after I went to the Bishop and did some whistle blowing. I would love to dish the dirt but this is not the place in front of our separated brethren. We have to keep up appearances or they will find ammo against us in whatever we say. Happy Holy Thursday ( another romish day )
Tim,
To be clear for your readers, Kevin is not putting me in what could be construed as ‘imminent danger’.
I absolutely will not return to this site to be blamed for the cause of his distressful anxiety.
Thank you, Debbie. I was primarily concerned for your safety.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim, I read the piece by Spurgeon ” the Religion of Rome Sword and Trowel” It is amazing, he says time makes something more enchanting. You mentioned just the fervor and the complete disdain with which these men of God spoke of the doctrines of Rome. He prayed that God would drag them into hell. He called the the greatest hoax and superstitions perpetuated on Rome. And to read his account how countries ( Italy the worst for 1000 years) were impoverished and left desolate at the monetary gain of the Roman church and t’s Priests is staggering. But the one thing that hit me he said is in line with Rome being the antithesis of Christianity was to look at how the custom of the Pope having his feet kissed was in direct contradiction to our Lord washing the feet of the disciples. Peter and Paul said gold and silver I have none. They built a basilica with the guilt of the confessional and indulgences and masses needed for even the dead in Purgatory. And they took that selling into Purgatory to pay of the debts of those who needed to still pay of eternal temporal punishment. A twisted Religion. A clever system that has bewitched the gullible world. We must fight this error with all we have.
Kevin,
You are so right to attack the doctrine of the following,
“And they took that selling into Purgatory to pay of the debts of those who needed to still pay of eternal temporal punishment”
Tim! If I tell Kevin, he will think I am lying. So you have to explain to him that ETERNAL TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT
is as stupid as his misuse of ex opere operato. ( I should be grateful he didn’t say, “…pay off the debt of eternal temporal punishment ex opere operato”.
Tim, this is just a suggestion, but I think you should print the last paragraph of Spurgeon’s Piece The Religion of Rome sword and Trowel, so that Protestants would understand and never forget the mentality we should have toward Rome.
Hey Tim, Kevin, and Walt, Lets you guys fight. Why aren’t you all in the same denomination? Do you really agree on the essentials? What are they? Is there a list in the Bible? Is the one essential what Luther called ‘My Gospel” hither to unknown to man? Walt, that link you shared was strange. What version of the Bible do you use?
Jim,
I hope you don’t mind if I answer. There are two essential truths and ALL revealed truths are implicitly contained in them.
1) God is.
2) He is the rewarder of those who seek Him.
Protestants agree on these essentials and you can find them in Hebrews 11:6
That is true, but unless you know what it means to seek Him, it will not help you, for the Jews thought they were seeking the Lord, but when He came, they did not recognize Him.
Eric W,
Do Protestant ( Calvinists ) seek God? Do dead men seek?
Why does Kelvin exhort people to come to Faith?
Sounds like decisional regeneration. Waterless magical Baptism, eh?
Eric, unless man has some part to play, (seeking for instance ), your admonitions, exhortations, chiding and badgering are
just self serving back slapping by the elect for “not being like other men” ( Luke 18:9-14 ).
Jim, we are told to preach the Gospel. Only God knows who is chosen.
Jim,
“,,,it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and when this foolishness of preaching is done, the elect will believe, as demonstrated in Acts 13:48, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” What is preached, and what is believed, is the word of God: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17).
When we preach even here on this blog, we are not imploring you to wake yourself up from the dead, or to regenerate yourself that you might believe. Rather, we are engaging in the foolishness of preaching perchance that the Lord may be pleased to open the hearts (regenerate) of some that they may attend to (believe) the things spoken (Acts 16:14).
And what we preach is the Word of God.
You are quite right that the dead do not seek God. However God regenerates whom He will unto belief in the Word of God, and that through the foolishness of preaching.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim, So God dances to your tune? Sounds worse that Baptismal regeneration ex opere operato!
“perchance that the Lord may be pleased to open the hearts (regenerate) of some that they may attend to (believe) the things spoken (Acts 16:14).”
Perchance?
Perhaps I should have used “peradventure,” which literally means, perchance, as in, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 Timothy 2:25).
No, God does not dance to my tune. The Word of God is not “my tune.” It is God’s Word, and that is what we preach. We preach the Word of God peradventure that the Lord may be pleased to open the hearts (regenerate) of some that they may attend to (believe) the things spoken (Acts 16:14).
Tim
Jim, said” so God dances to your tune” What is embarrassing Jim is you constantly make fun of what Tim teaches you from Scripture which I’m going to venture to say is more truth that you have ever gotten out of a pulpit. You can read those Scriptures for yourself and yet you make fun of them. Romans 10:17 along with 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18 clearly and explicitly say faith comes thru the word of God by the Spirit. When he told Nicodemus you must be born again of water and Spirit, it is clear that the water in OT ( which he would have understood) is the internal cleansing form sin and regeneration that all is a work of the Spirit. We do the preaching and God does the choosing. Rome has tried to make their false gospel reasonable to natural man. Natural man is dead in sin and unable to come to the truth. 1 Corinthians 1:30 ” It is by HIS doing you are in Christ who became ( past tense) to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption. Covers the gambit Jim. So put all the plastic rosaries away, burn the scapular, quit worshiping the bread, and believe the gospel. Tim is patient, because your constant disrespect is acting pearls before swine to me.
Jim, we are in the same catholic church. The one where they preach the gospel and administer the sacraments rightly. Where they teach the word of God. One big unified body of Christ. Jim you should listen to the message Walt provides by John MacArthur. Its the truth.
Jim, I’m down with Eric W on Hebrews 11:6. Vermigli said Faith is a firm and constant assent of the soul to the words of God, an assent breathed upon us by the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of those who believe.. The material cause is the words of God, the formal cause is the act of consenting to these words; the efficient cause is the Spirit of God by whom we are persuaded; and the final cause is our salvation. They make up the church.” Full orbed faith” in the words of the great theologian and friend Eric W. 1 John says by this faith we have overcome the world.
Eric W, can you tell me what you believe Mathew 11:12 means? Ever since you brought it up the other day it has intreated me.
Kevin,
Iron sharpens iron, brother…check this out to know my meaning
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/11.html
Hi Jim, you said:
“Walt, that link you shared was strange. What version of the Bible do you use?”
I’m not sure what link you mean as I posted a couple. Let me know as perhaps I made a mistake posting the wrong one. I used to read the Good News bible that my dad gave me when I was a boy. I think switched to the NIV when I left the RCC and then later switched to the KJV. However, about 3 years ago I switched to the Geneva 1599 which I use now since I like to read the marginal notes as a reference.
The best available commentaries on the Scriptures are the annotations by the Westminster Divines. Here is a source title for those who want to buy the massive 6 volume series.
“The Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible (Volume 1, 1657) Annotations Upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament: This Third, above the First and Second, Edition so enlarged, As they make an entire Commentary on the Sacred Scriptures: The like never before published in English. Wherein the Text is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scripture Parallel’d, and Various Readings observed; By the Labour of certain Learned Divines thereunto appointed, and therein employed, As is expressed in the Preface
The Westminster Annotations and Commentary on the Whole Bible (Volume 1, 1657) covers Genesis to 2 Kings.”
Walt, I would like your quick take on the MacArthur message you posted. I listened and thought it was right on from a saved teacher.
that should be Saged teaher
I am not a big fan of MacArthur as I disagree with his views on predictive prophecy, normative principle vs. regulative principle, eschatology, strict cessationism, occasional hearing, form of church government and worship. However, I definitely support his public and firm position against the charismatic and modern evangelical movements. I’ve traveled and worked in almost 50 countries and think the heresies that American Christians have exported around the world is approaching Rome’s global reach.
I’m very happy he is speaking out against it, and documenting it in writing. I saw an update video he just did on what has happened since the Strange Fire conference ended, and it was interesting as well. There is a lot of good information in those videos and the follow-up ones that attack his views. A lot to learn for those who want to learn the history of this movement and the incredible damage the movement is causing globally.
When I was young I liked to listen to MacArthur on the radio when I would wake up at 3 or 4 in the morning. I enjoyed what he said on New Agers and stuff like that. I liked his voice and his general style. ( I like RC Sproul too but my favorite of all times was Chuck Swindoll ).
One night Mac went wacko against the miraculous healings at Lourdes and said they were of the devil. Since then, while I still kinda like him, I realize MacArthur has been seduced by Calvinism into a blasphemous cult.His mind is warped and he tries to pass all doctrine through a passage or two in Romans on justification. ( Why? Why not pass all doctrine through Jn 19? Who decides? )
Forget the Bible question Walt. I thought on the link you sent that it said the 7 books not in the Protestant OT should never have been taken out. Hmmmmm? Oh well,
Have a nice Easter, Jim
Eric W, thx for the link. great stuff. A battalion taking a hill, no doubt. Storming a stronghold. And that what were up against. It aint for the faint hearted.
Walt, first I totally agree describing the doctrinal falsehoods put out by much of modern evangelicalism influenced heavily by the charismatic movement is hard to quantify. And it is rivaling Rome in that way. I feel like like Horton is right on also with the emphasis on moralism in modern church is starting to rival Rome. Synergism has become the synonym for justification. The lack of of the great Reformed doctrines being taught has been the downfall of the Protestant church.
Walt, You are wrong to take the WCF over the Council of Trent. The Church is infallible and so her final court of appeal, the Pope is too.
First I will prove (A)the Church infallible, (B)Then that Peter was the Pope, then (C) that Francis sits in Peter’s chair today.
(A) The Church
1. Go therefore and teach ye all nations, all that I have commanded you…I am with you until the end of the world ( Mtt 28;19-20
2. The Father will send you another Paraclete to teach you all things and to remind you of all that I have taught you. John 14:26)
3. The Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth ( 1 Tm 3:15)
4.The Holy Spirit will come upon you and you will be my witness to the…uttermost part of the earth ( Acts 1:8)
5. Christ is the Head of His Body the Church (Col 1:17)
The first Apostles were indeed infallible. If you doubt it, then you cannot trust what they wrote down in scripture.
Christ knew the original 12 would be dead in a few years. An all wise builder building on a rock foundation would not start a project without make provision for its completion.
Jump to Titus and Timothy to see succession of Bishops.
(B) Peter was the Pope (C) The Office was infallible and successive
#1 John’s gospel was written in Greek. One word is is Hebrew however. Jesus changes Simon’s name to “Kephas” and form of Kaiphas. Elsewhere in this gospel, the wicked High Priest speaks infallibly due to his office when he says it is better for one man to die than…
#2 Jesus gives Simon the title of Rock. Henceforth the other Apostles call Simon Peter. Only Jesus continues to use the name Simon for him. An example; Jesus said to Peter,” Simon are you sleeping”.
#3 Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom/Church in a formula reminiscent of the investure of the prime minister in Is 22:22. This office was dynastic ( calling for successors)
#4 In Lk 22 Jesus says to Peter, ” Satan has desired to sift you ( plural. You 12) but I have prayed for you ( singular. You Peter ) so that you will strengthen them ( Peter was to strengthen the others )
#5 After the Resurrection, Jesus tell Peter to ” Feed my lambs ( lay people ), Feed my sheep ( clergy ) shepherd my sheep.
#6 In every list of the Apostles, Peter is first, Judas last despite the sequence of the other 10 is different in each list.
#7 Many times the phrase, ” Peter and the others” is used.
#8 Peter always speaks for the others ( Pentecost, before the Sanhedron, etc. )
#9 Jesus preaches from Peter’s boat
#10 Peter halls in the great net of 151 fish ( According to the Jews, there were 151 races of men )
#11 After the Resurrection, Magadalene is told to go tell Peter.
#12 Peter cures with his shadow
#13 Peter strikes Annaias and Sappira dead with his words because they had lied to the Holy Spirit ( They had lied to Peter ).
#14 Jesus speak in the plural only once, when he tells Peter the two of them will share the Temple tax coin.
#15 Peter walked on water with Jesus
# 16 Peter opens the Church to Jewish converts on Pentecost
#17 ” ” ” ” ” Samaritan converts
#18 ” ” ” ” Gentiles ( Cornelius )
#19 Peter ( Not James! ) makes the decree that is binding today at the Jerusalem Council. ( James’ decree was temporary so as not to scandalize his Jewish convert flock ).
#20 Peter puts his imprimatur on Paul’s writings as scripture
NOT CONVINCED YET? OKAY, I GOT MORE:
#21 Peter is mentioned about 200 times in the NT. John, about 25. The others, 3 or 4 times.
#22 Peter decrees that someone must take Judas’ bishopric. And like the High Priests of Israel who used the Urim and Thumim. Petr had the Apostles choose by lot.
#23 Peter raises the dead
#24 Peter is superior to Paul. In Galatians, Paul “visits” James but “consults”Cephas
#25 Peter has the vision of unclean animals ( gentiles )
#26 Although John was younger and outran Peter to the tomb, he stood aside and let the Poe enter first so as to be first Apostolic witness
I can keep going? Want me to start with the Church Fathers’ witness now?
Have I made my case that Peter had pastorship?
Now, I have already pointed to Is 22:22 to establish dynastic succession for the Prime Minister’s office. Peter was PM for the New Davidic Kingdom, the Church. I have already shown Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus.
Okay Walt. Now that I have established my case, it is time for an act of Faith.
Faith is now the next step logically in the sequence.
The Obedience of Faith now requires submission to all the decrees and dogmas the Pope proclaims:; Mary’s Assumption, the Canon, the Real Presence, even the Divinity of the Christ!
The topic is Sola Scriptura. Not Peter, not Tradition , not the price of tea in China. Walt, you cannot prove Sola Scriptura,
As a matter of fact, I disproved it 100% to you a few days ago.
You have not even tried to rebutt.
You, Kevin and Tim are all blind guides leading blind men over hear.
Jim, you wrote:
“The topic is Sola Scriptura. Not Peter, not Tradition , not the price of tea in China. Walt, you cannot prove Sola Scriptura,
As a matter of fact, I disproved it 100% to you a few days ago.
You have not even tried to rebutt.”
I’m sorry to say that I have not been paying close attention to your posts. Can you show me again please where you disproved Sola Scriptura 100%?
You also said:
“First I will prove (A)the Church infallible, (B)Then that Peter was the Pope, then (C) that Francis sits in Peter’s chair today….I can keep going? Want me to start with the Church Fathers’ witness now? Have I made my case that Peter had pastorship?…Okay Walt. Now that I have established my case, it is time for an act of Faith.”
Yes, please keep going…it is fascinating for me to read your position on those three points. I’ve heard some of those points as a Catholic, but you have taken it to a far new level for me.
I would like your views on the Church Fathers most certainly.
Sure, you have made a case that Peter was a Pastor. I would not argue Peter was not a Pastor. I’m not sure of your point.
Faith to trust in your list you mean? I’m not yet able to do that Jim as I have little faith in men such as yourself. I put my faith in Scripture as the primary standard, and the faithful Church’s best reformed subordinate standards…defined as follows:
“Our single primary standard, from which all our doctrines and beliefs are derived, is the Word of God, i.e., the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. Similarly, our faithful forefathers derived their doctrines also from Scripture and have, at various times in history, preserved those doctrines for us in writing. In keeping with the Scripture’s command, we “hold fast” to the doctrines contained in the documents listed below, insofar as they are agreeable to Scripture. These documents, because their authority is derived from Scripture, are known as our secondary standards or subordinate standards.”
For example, here is a statement I agree with:
“VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
[13] JOH 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 1CO 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[14] 1CO 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
And two more:
“IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
[23] 2PE 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. ACT 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up.
[24] MATT. 22:29,31. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying. EPH. 2:20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. With ACTS 28:25. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto our fathers.
By the way, when you seek to disprove Sola Scriptura, can you please use the RCC “infallible” position on Scripture, and compare it to the Westminster Confession as approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1646.
While I know that you have a great deal of faith in your own arguments, I’m afraid your proof texts in your list are sorely lacking. The Scripture proofs you made, along with your annotations, are really confusing with other Scripture proofs.
Have you compared your annotations above on those verses you quote with the Westminster Divines annotations?
“IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
[9] 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
It seems Peter in the proof texts above would find your views confusing. Have you ever read the epistles of Peter yourself? Have you ever read the Word of God yourself?
Jim, I missed on of the proof texts above … see below.
[12] 2TI 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 2TH 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Walt, I don’t have the energy to scroll up, copy and paste the the 3 or 4 posts I sent about 5 or 6 days ago to you on Gutenebrg’s press and other stuff.
Sorry you didn’t read it. Sorry you find the word of Protestants more trustworthy the Catholics. Here where i live, there is a JW Kingdom Hall close by. Most who knock on my door were once Catholics. I am always fascinated on their logic for apostatizing.
The Trinity never made sense to them as a kid but Michael being Jesus does. (??????!!!!) They couldn’t believe their parents and priests but two strangers with brief cases knocking at their door was all it took to join a cult. Now they love to go door to door saying” Do you want to hear a secret? Jesus didn’t die on a cross. His father’s name is jehovah and the best news of all is he wasn’t God”!
Like Tim, they have dedicated their lives to destroying the faith once delivered to the Church.
It sounds like your major beef with the Church Walt, was that you had to ring a little bell at Mass when you were a kid. WOW.
It sure didn’t take much to steal you away from Christ’s Church did it? Really sad Walt that you hang on all this Scottish presbyterian stuff as if it were true. Sad.
Ciao, Jim
Jim, you wrote to Walt:
It sure didn’t take much to steal you away from Christ’s Church did it? Really sad Walt that you hang on all this Scottish presbyterian stuff as if it were true. Sad.
Response:
Don’t be sad. He may belong to the “heart of the Christ’s Church.” You, however, belong to its “body.” Be sad because you don’t know if you belong to its “heart.”
Jim, you wrote:
“It sounds like your major beef with the Church Walt, was that you had to ring a little bell at Mass when you were a kid. WOW.”
Actually, you did not read my testimony very well. From what I can tell Jim, and I do hope other readers see this as well, is that you are very much an expert at taking people’s (and Scripture) written testimony out of context. The more you post saying what others say here, it seems you like to twist it to mean something they did not mean to say. I see from your list above on Peter and the infallibility of the church you do that with Scripture too. I did not say I had a beef with Rome because I had to ring a bell.
The bell raised a question in my mind as an alter boy…so I asked what it was for. I have always been an avid learner and interested in traveling the world to find out answers to my questions. Now with the internet, I can do it faster, but I still traveled over 76,000 miles last year where I find I learn more.
It is unfortunate that you have twisted what I said to demean me and make fun of my childhood experiences with Rome. Some of us do not limit our teaching to only Rome as you have clearly done, and ignored much of Church history outside what you have been indoctrinated to believe.
I do remember your post on Guttenberg, but that was not anything I would view as a 100% rejection of Sola Scriptura. I did read those following posts too. Are you sure that those comments were designed to totally remove all doubt in my mind that Scripture is the primary standard, and church testimony is a secondary standard? Come on Jim…please.
Your view that church testimony supersedes Scripture, and is infallible, is pretty extreme. Even Rome generally says that sacred tradition is equal to Scripture, and that their infallible testimony by a Pope is limited. Your views are really very extreme and are not just destructive heresy, but damnable heresy.
I know you will not believe this passage because it has been overturned by your tradition, but it is a very serious text for guys like you who reject the word of God and put faith in men.
GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Walt, I did not demean your bad childhood experiences. That bell comment stood out because, of all your memories of the Church, that seems to stand out for you.
I had a few childhood experiences with extreme bigotry from the folks you have teamed up with and I am sickened by your choice to leave the Church.
Walt, Sola Scriptura is wrong. Thanks for your serious efforts to rebutt. ( Of course I am being sarcastic here Walt. )
You are in fine company with Tim and Kevin.
I was blown away that anybody could juxtapose the profound teachings of the Council of Trent with those of the WCF and not choose the truth over error in an instant.
You have walked away from the Eucharist, your Mother and the Communion of Saints.
It is not my place to judge you. I hope you make it back home. If not, I am worried for you Walt. But a merciful God will read your heart.
I wish you well, have a Holy Easter, Jim
Eric W, I’m banned from the other site. But “lie manufacturing company” I hope I can meet you someday bro. This retort to Jim, so gooooood!
Kevin, I sure would like to meet you too!
Kevin,
May God will a visit together…sometimes you need levity when fighting the good fight
Eric W, ” From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of God suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.” In love brother.
As my comments were not meant to derail this thread from Transubstantiation/Eucharist, I’ve tried to be brief. With over 100 comments on this thread, I’ve not been able to keep up and distinguish the main topic from the mini-rabbit trail I started.
I wont be responding any further here, but I’m reachable by email and hopefully I can chime in on a future thread dedicated to Sola Fide or Sola Ecclesia. I do strongly stand by my claims that Sola Fide **as taught in Paul’s Epistles** is the linchpin, because as long as Calvinists think they have a lock on that, they quite understandably kick back and assume Catholicism cannot be right on other issues, including Sola Scriptura. So that’s why I go all in, and with vengeance, hammering Calvinists hard on Romans, Galatians, etc, and with quite pleasant results.
Nick,
Thank you for your participation here. You are always a welcome guest. When I have time I’ll be sure to read your position paper on Romans 4.
Best regards,
Tim
Nick, SHUCKS! We all would have enjoyed watching you pull the loose thread on Tim’s pants that unravels them completely leaving his backside exposed.
Nick, I have one simple question for a very brilliant man as yourself. If in Ephesians 2: 8 Paul completely eliminates works or anything coming from ourselves to bring our salvation then how can the doctrine of cooperation with infused love ( faith plus works) for a final justification be the gospel.? Seem like a simple reasonable question.
Kevin, How can Nick be so brilliants if he worships bread? Only an imbecile would do that. If you love Nick, you owe him the truth. don’t you? Don’t be soft on his romish idolatry. Blast the papist here and now or you really love man more than Jesus. Confess Jesus before Nick. If you don’t Jesus will deny you before the Father.
Tim, back on topic. It is always interesting how Rome considers the Last Supper a sacrifice when the crucifixion had not yet happened. Are we to believe that Christ gave his shed blood to them at the Supper before he had yet shed it?
Tim,
I was just listening to Dave Anderson explain the difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation and thought of you.
Unlike papists, Lutherans don’t deny that plain ordinary bread is before them in their monstrance ( Yes! I was surprised some Lutherans expose their bread in a monstrance. Check it out on utube ). So, I think you should launch an attack on them.
I googled and got http://www.lutheranblogs.org. Could you post results of your exchanges with the idolaters here on this site for us all to see?
Also, Dave A. was explaining Paul’s attitude towards eating meats that had be offered to demon idols. He says it would be okay but because it could scandalize some one like Kevin, don’t do it. Intention and reality seem to matter to Paul.
So, could you tell me again why Catholics who intend to worship Christ, though sorely mistaken in your view, are actually worshiping bread.
Oh, please don’t say because we bow, kneel or prostrate ourselves before the Host. I concede we do that. That is external. I am interested in intention and the will.
You know Tim, Chesterton said something clever once about externals in religion. It was in response to someone saying Catholics and pagans both use beads, incense, statues, chanting, etc. etc. What he said went like this;
“Imagine tow men, both wearing a three foot length of rope. One man is wearing it around his waist to hold his pants up.
The other fellow is wearing it around his neck to hold him up”.
Then Chesterton went on to explain the differences in pantheistic and theistic worship.
Anyway, let us see those posts to the Lutherans, okay.
Happy Good Friday,
Tim, I wanted to encourage you this good Friday and all the Protestants on this sight to keep up the good fight. It hit me today Tim when you were pilfered on the other site for apologizing to someone, that the fight we fight is a spiritual fight. The Catholics on that site rage with impunity and yet criticize when someone apologizes. Amazing Our battle is against flesh and blood but principalities and strong holds of evil. When that person asked you how you could leave being” consecrated to Mary” to follow Christ, I about fell off my chair. Those who have made the idol of the mother of Jesus, or the idol of worshiping bread will answer for their idolatry. Let us never forget that Roman Catholicism is a false christianity, apostate, and a front for the kingdom of satan. And the true church has always known this. God bless and happy Easter everyone.
Kevin! This is so silly;”When that person asked you how you could leave being” consecrated to Mary” to follow Christ, I about fell off my chair”.
The DeMontfort Consecration is To Jesus Through Mary!
( Consecration to Mary is just a shortened way to say it).
You butcher phrases like “ex opere operato, eternal temporal punishment, etc. proving you are 99.9% ignorant of Catholicism.
Jim, Nick has been more respectful to me than all the other Catholics and his arguments are well thought out. Nobody who worships the mother of Jesus or bread is an idiot, just lost. The one thing I love about the premise of this site is that Tim sates very clearly, the gospels of Protestants and Catholics are not the same. Either one gets to heaven by faith alone in Christ alone, or by Faith plus a life of doing sacraments ( good works) to increase ( free) grace and justice. They aren’t the same. Paul says believe and Rome says cooperate with infused love. They aint the same.
Actually Kevin,
you have, “Paul says believe and Rome says cooperate with infused love. ” this wrong.
Paul says ” cooperate with belief infused with Love”.
Luther says, “believe without or love or cooperation”.
Hi Tim,
You’ve dispelled the catacombs as evidence for early Eucharistic Adoration, so I was wondering if you have been able to establish when Eucharistic Adoration really started to become more widespread and accepted in the church?
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts over at Creed Code Cult, and followed the link to you blog. Keep up the good work.
That is a terrific question. It is toward the end of the 4th century that hard evidence begins to appear for many of these practices. The evidence for much of what is alleged by Rome to be apostolic is largely conjectural between the first century and the end of the fourth. This is something I’ve been thinking a lot about, and I’m planning to address it in a post soon.
Thanks for reading,
Tim
SWR,
When you say “Eucharistic Adoration” I hope you don’t mean putting the Sacred Host in a monstrance and processing around with it.
If you mean believing in the Real Presence, that goes back to day one. If you and/or Tim say otherwise, I would like to know when the practice crept in to the Church.
Obviously, it couldn’t have been syncretism before the decree of Constantine as Christians were opting to be lion food rather than compromise the purity of the faith by burning a pinch of incense before an idol.
Luther says what Paul said Believing unto good works. Not believing is good works.
Jim you said “I hope you don’t mean by Eucharistic Adoration putting the Host in a monstrance and marching that around.” Ya that would be better called idolatry.
Jim, your little history stories are cute, but how about some bible. ” being consecrated to Mary” is Idolatry. Tim has rightfully put his finger on the subject of Mary. You see God is a bad guy transcendent, and Jesus he is pissed at us all the time to and you go to mamma Mary because she softens him up and gets on his case and makes things better and gets him off your back. So Rome makes Christ out to be the bad guy strapped to the cross, and Mary is elevated as mediatrix the Savior of the world. After all JPII had her name sewn into his vestments and committed himself and the whole church into the hands of Marry. He died with a twisted crucifix in his hand and a Cardinal said we prayed for him and now we are going to pray to him. The guardian of Roman theology. Our heart should break for that man and all those under the spell of his false religion. 26 years in that position and never able to come to the truth. If you are consecrated to Marry you aren’t a Christian. “no man can serve two masters.” You will love the one and hate the other. and by giving adoration to bread or Mary you have shame the name of Christ who is blessed forever Amen!
Eric W, On the other site are you saying that the infused gift of faith crowd are not THOSE Jesus talk about believing in Him thru their word? Love to know where your going with this. Because if I read you right you are saying that the idea of infused gift of faith is not from the deposit of faith?
Kevin,
This is one of those moments where terminology can turn into wrangling over words. I want to avoid wrangling, so I give the benefit of the doubt that RC and Prot. use “believe” or “faith” the same way. Since we differ on truths believed, I need to sort through some things.
The supernatural virtue of faith in the RC system is VERY important to their system. They KNOW revealed truths are true through this faith. An adherent to the RC system cannot merely talk about the system and its relation to truth. They must be within the system, otherwise, what’s the point of their claim for its truthfulness.
I think identification of one of the “those” of John 17 is the same as identify a revealed truth of the deposit of faith. If you can identify Kevin in “All men sin in Adam”, then perhaps we can identify Kevin in “those.”
If the RC is willing to say they are among the “those”, then they are identifying a revealed truth. But only the authorities can do that ! With a bombastic spirit, I call this the ultimate “to the man” argument. If the RC is not certain( on RC terms only) about being a RC, then they are disqualified as a reliable witness to the RC system.
Take private judgment, or give up reliable witness. It’s up to them.
Jim, how have I butchered ex opere operato? By the working of the works. You get increase in grace by doing sacraments. You have put sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement. and you worship the wafer God.
Eric W, let me run something by you. When the Ethiopian treasury secretary ran into Philip , he was reading Isaiah 53. Philip asked him if he understood. And he said how could I I have no one to tech me. So Philip explained it to him and then baptized him and it says he went on his way merrily. Philip wasn’t infallible . Get what i’m saying.
Eric W, I get it with the identification in those in John 17 now . thx
Kevin,
I get you and Philip is a good example for you and I….even the just freedom to baptize someone when appropriate.
Eric W, great point!
Eric W, Isn’t there a verse in first john that says we have no need for anyone to teach us because we have the Spirit? I don’t want to read this out of context that God has established his church. But I’m trying to understand your point of private judgment being a function of each one of us having the Holy spirit. We are told to test the Spirits. are we not to make judgments on truth individually? This would go against that corporate indoctrination. Opine my friend. Impart your knowledge. Hope you are having a good Easter. Orioles are the real deal this year. My Angels are scuffling!
Eric W, 1 John 2:14 says I write to you you men because the word of God abides in you. It doesn’t say the church abides in us. Is this an argument for the authority of scripture in your opinion.
Jim, you wrote:
“Walt, I did not demean your bad childhood experiences. That bell comment stood out because, of all your memories of the Church, that seems to stand out for you.
I had a few childhood experiences with extreme bigotry from the folks you have teamed up with and I am sickened by your choice to leave the Church.
Walt, Sola Scriptura is wrong.”
Jim, I did not say that you demeaned my childhood. You wrote: “I did not demean your bad childhood experiences.”
Where did I say that you were demeaning to my childhood experiences?
What I said exactly was not that you demeaned my childhood experiences, but that you took my statement about the bell out of context to what I said.
What you exactly said was: “It sounds like your major beef with the Church Walt, was that you had to ring a little bell at Mass when you were a kid. WOW.”
and what I exactly said was:
“Actually, you did not read my testimony very well. From what I can tell Jim, and I do hope other readers see this as well, is that you are very much an expert at taking people’s (and Scripture) written testimony out of context. The more you post saying what others say here, it seems you like to twist it to mean something they did not mean to say. I see from your list above on Peter and the infallibility of the church you do that with Scripture too. I did not say I had a beef with Rome because I had to ring a bell.”
My point in the rebuttal of you had nothing to do with demeaning my childhood. The point was that I made it clear in my testimony that as an alter boy I rang the bell and asked the Priest why I had to ring the bell. That was not a bad experience, it was my job and I asked why I had to do it. The answer was it was to wake people up who were sleeping.
You then again take me out of context in responding to me when I was concerned about your taking me and others out of context to their written word. I’m concerned about your taking me out of context and more concerned about you taking Scripture out of context. That is my second point and now my third and supporting point.
You said also, “I had a few childhood experiences with extreme bigotry from the folks you have teamed up with and I am sickened by your choice to leave the Church.”
Who are these people that you say I have “teamed up with” that caused you “a few childhood experiences with extreme bigotry”?
I don’t know anyone who knows you as I don’t know you, and certainly I have not teamed up with anyone that I am aware that has caused you extreme bigotry.
Jim, it sounds to me that you are again taking something I said out of context in hopes to make people who read this think that some group or Church I’m involved with has teamed up with me and in the past caused you extreme bigotry.
Even when I testified that I am aware of the public allegations in our local Roman Catholic church of the sisters, brothers and priests who had sexual relations with some of the children in the school, I do know they did not do anything to me. I think we have all heard about some allegations and perhaps even some facts that this evil sin has become an issue with some RCC priests and others within the RCC.
I don’t understand how you now accuse me of teaming up with people that caused you bigotry when you were a child.
It does not seem fair to accuse me of this unknown allegation as you don’t know who I have teamed up with so to speak. In fact, I have not teamed up with anyone and certainly not teamed up with anyone I’m aware that has caused you bigotry whether as a church or individual.
Jim, I’m afraid you are mistaken about your opinions about me, and lastly, you said:
“Walt, Sola Scriptura is wrong.”
I think I understand why you believe this Jim. I can only judge you from your own works here Jim, so perhaps I am in error, but your words alone tell me that you don’t like Sola Scriptura because you take it out of context, and believe everyone also takes it out of context. From your own presupposition to what people or God Himself says, you take people out of context so everyone must take everyone (including God) out of context.
Therefore, Sola Scriptura in your mind is not only wrong as nobody can possibly defend such a doctrine because they will just take it out of context like you seem to take everyone and Scripture out of context.
I fear for you Jim. Scripture speaks against you. It says to:
“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” (2Tim.1:13)
There are MANY variations of this same proof text from other business bibles that are translated used to generate a profit from God’s word. Those which are used to make a profit for the translator and interpreter are here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Timothy%201:13
The Catholic Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) by Public Domain states:
“Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.”
The Message Bible says:
“So keep at your work, this faith and love rooted in Christ, exactly as I set it out for you. It’s as sound as the day you first heard it from me. Guard this precious thing placed in your custody by the Holy Spirit who works in us.”
Boy, that seems very confusing taking the Bible out of Context. What is The Message Bible?
“It is impossible to separate Jesus the Living Word from Jesus the Written Word. Therefore, one can easily see why Jesus, the Light of the World, cannot be portrayed with a false light, a false Bible. You will, in effect, be presenting “another Jesus,” “another spirit,” and “another Gospel” (II Cor.11:4). “The Message Bible” is just such a false light. It is actually not a Bible. ”
Here is an issue with The Message for all to see:
“The Biblical interpretation of being “in Christ Jesus” has always meant to be a true Born-Again Child of God due to correctly placed Faith in The Finished Work of the Cross. The Message, however, redirects you to the Holy Spirit’s “presence” within Christ, saying that with Christ’s “arrival” that “fateful dilemma is resolved.”
PRESENCE?
There is another interesting point to be made here regarding the idea of “presence.” There is a doctrine in the New Age movement that refutes the Biblical concept of a “transcendent” God, a God existing apart from nature and man. Helena P. Blavatsky explains that God is a mystical, impersonal “Presence,” that may manifest His living, moving Fire in many ways.4 Alice Bailey said, “This inevitably brings in the concept of the Presence, or of God Immanent and is the result of the needed revolt against the one-sidedness of the belief in God Transcendent.”5 God is called the “Presence” numerous times throughout The Message. It even refers to the sacred shewbread in the Old Testament as the “Bread of Presence” eight times.6 For instance, The Message says, “Always keep fresh Bread of the Presence on the Table before me” (Ex. 25:30). This closely resembles the Catholic idea of transubstantiation in which the bread and wine mystically transform into the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Catholics kneel during mass because they believe the literal presence of Christ is among them in the form of the bread.”
http://www.francesandfriends.com/message-bible-perversion-holy-word/
Jim, CONTEXT is important. I hope you learn to take the form of Sound Words of Scripture that is being taught, and learn them to show yourself approved.
“Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2Tim.2:14-16)
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph.4:14-15)
Tim and Kelvin,
Why preach? Does God need your synergistic help? Salvation is from the Lord.
Keep out of the Spirit’s way. Let Him blow where He will. Your filthy mentrual rags just want to boast for preaching like Sturgeon did.
STOP SMUGGLING YOUR PREACHING INTO THE SPIRIT’S WORK.
Kevin says Catholics have Jesus on the cross and altar.
Calvinsters have the Spirit in a bottle. Kelvin thinks that his badgering and exhorting and heckling will make the comeSpirit out of the bottle and regenerate when Kelvin opens his mouth an hee-haws.
Kevin! Release the Spirit. Uncork the bottle. Let Him work where he wills.
Tim and Kelvin! Come of the the Calvinish Whore! Repent! Leave the works of darkness! Wash yourself from your filthiness. Stop preaching. Come into the light.
Kevin, you preaching does not work ex opere operato!
Inquisitor said ” Calvinists have the Spirit in the bottle” I think you are confused with your apostate church who has the Spirit bottled in a sacrament and only moves at the behest of Priest or work for justice. O’brien says the Scoundrel (Priest) brings Christ down from heaven at his command and sacrifices him on the altar. Now that is some serious synergism dude!
Inquisitor, you do and God gives you grace. God gives us grace and we do. When I’m preaching the gospel its all monergistic. When you put on your scapular its all synergistic. You Cat’licks can’t resist the urge to smuggle your character into God’s work of grace. I’m just doing the the works that God prepared beforehand. Watch closely! Ephesians 2: 10 ” for we are His workmanship , created in Christ Jesus, for good works , which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. ” For by grace you have been saved by faith; and not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works” So the next time your synergism kicks in and your milking that mass for some extra righteousness ( you do your level best and God gives you grace) stop smuggling and jump on the monergistic mercy train. Hint, its by faith alone in Christ alone. Get off of salvation on the installment plan and get saved. Revelation 18:4 ” come out from her my people.
Inquisitor,
I really like your style. If we could get in a time machine and go back to better days, how would you deal with Kelvin?
Jim, Inquisitor writes and sounds allot like you. Just saying!
Tim, ( not Walt please ),
You wrote in this article.
“We will continue to call it bread, for that is what it is, and we certainly see no need to bow to it, genuflect to it, or give to it the worship of latria, which is due to God alone”
Tim, if a Protestant really believes his religion, fine. He should not genuflect or bow down to the Eucharist. It could be a sin even by Catholic standards to lie.
But why do you use the term “Death Wafer”? James Swan knows a lot more than you do about theology and he says there is no substance to the term, only polemics. ( A.K.A. “pissiness” ).
Have you heard the debate from the 80s or 90s between Gerry Matatics and Jmaes White on the Mass?
At one point Gerry says the Protestant Lord’s Supper is onlycrackers and grape juice.
James White stopped the debate to demand an apology as he had been offended.
Gerry bent over backwards retracting and apologizing for his irreverent description of a rite sacred to Protestants.
He had been clumsy and said he was sorry to the point of grovelling.
I asked you not to allow a term on your blog that has no apologetic substance ( as James Swan says ). You could get your point across quite effectively without giving unnecessary offense. I never asked you to” bow down, genuflect or render latria” to bread.
I merely asked you to respect me as a man who is sensitive to the way his religion is spoken about. I did not ask you to respect Catholicism or compromise anything you believe about doctrine.
Have you ever been in a fight Tim, as a kid or even as an adult? Was it with a guy wearing glasses? Do you wear glasses yourself?
Isn’t it understood as men that the eyes are off limits if a fellow has glass over them? To take advantage of a persons vulnerability is the sign of a coward.
I assumed you had a sense of honor, or fair fighting, chivalry, whatever when I asked you as the blog owner/moderator who was refereeing a spat between Kevin and myself. One little phrase is all I asked not to be spat in my face on this blog. One little phrase.
You mocked me just as the pukes on on Green Baggins did. Neither of you can duke it out with scripture or reason. Ensconced safely behind your keyboards on the other side of cyberspace, you, Kevin and the GB guys say what you wouldn’t say to a guy’s face.
And you wonder why I don’t consider you a sincere Christian? You are a joke Tim. You and Bozo both.
Now, if you have anything more substantial than “death wafer” to disprove Transubstantiation, let’s have it.
Jim,
The Roman Catholic Eucharist is a wafer. To Rome, God is worshiped in the form of a wafer. It seems right to you, but “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 16:25). As I have demonstrated on several occasions, Elijah had no compunction about ridiculing the false gods of the pagans, even asking if perhaps their god did not answer because he was otherwise occupied, perhaps relieving himself (1 Kings 18:27). You may not think it’s fair or godly for me to refer to your wafer god as a crust of bread, but I ask that you take this matter up with Elijah. As far as I am concerned, your wafer god cannot hear you, and he can certainly do nothing to me—perhaps he is relieving himself.
You continually ask me to provide other protestant apologists who would say “Roman Catholics worship a piece of bread,” or refer to Roman “god” as a wafer of death (for such it is—all who worship it will be cast into the lake of fire). That is like asking Copernicus, “Have you found other men of the Ptolemaic school of geocentricism who agree with your hypothesis?” Of course he had not. Heliocentrisim was a new idea, and so instead of bringing more tradition and opinion to the table, Copernicus brought the only thing that mattered: data. That is all I have to offer you.
The Eucharistic wafer is death to you, Jim. It is a wafer. No matter what you call it, or what you think it really is, it is but a crust of bread that cannot save you, and is so impotent that it must be carried about by its unfortunate devotees. Jesus is not in prison in the tabernacles of the world, He is not lonely as He waits for people to come and visit him during perpetual adoration. He has no need of us at all, and He does not obey the command of the Roman Catholic priest to come down from heaven and re-present Himself to His Father.
Now if you really believe that it is acceptable to bow to the Eucharist because you really believe it is Jesus, then you’ll agree that it is acceptable for me to call it a death wafer because I really believe it is.
Jim, if it really is the Image of the Beast, me calling it “death wafer” is the very, very least of your concerns.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
So let me spell out your mission for you (should you decide to accept it ).
#1. Prove that accident and substance cannot ever exist in separation form each other.
That should be as easy as proving One Person can have only one nature or Three Persons cannot have the same nature. Or that a woman cannot be both Virgin and Mother.
After making short work of Transubstantiation, move on to
#2. Proving that I believe or think the Eucharist to be nothing more than bread.
As long as I mistakenly think it something other than bread, I am not worshiping it no matter how loud you screech that I am.
A man can be flat on his face before an idol. He can be worshiping it or he can be looking for his contact lens. Intent determines what is going on.
Please don’t waste my time with graven breads, death wafers, marks of the beast, arguments from silence about certain dates, misapplying St. Francis to St. Thomas Aquinas, or corn ball assertions that you have the divine prerogative of reading my mind to know if I am a bread worshiper or not.
Substance please. No empty polemics.
Jim,
If God has shut a man’s eyes so that he does not even have the sense to say “there is a lie in my right hand,” is he really guilty of idolatry? After all, he doesn’t even know there is a lie in his right hand.
Jim says no. God says yes:
If the man is really worshiping his god, why does God say he’s falling down “the stock of a tree?” Is God disrespecting the man’s intent?
A man may be bowing to and worshiping a piece of bread, thinking it is bread. Another man may bow to and worship a piece of bread, thinking it is God under the appearance of bread. Another man may bow to and worship a piece of bread, thinking it is banana pudding.
All three men are worshiping bread. What they think it is does not make it so.
A deceived heart is not going to be acquitted because it was deceived. It is going to be condemned because it was deceived. That’s why it is important not to be deceived into worshiping bread.
Tim
Tim,
Nice try.
Fashioning an idol out of a chunk of wood, worshiping bread or even my favorite banana pudding miss the mark of what we are arguing about.
Does the idol maker say to himself, ” to be sure, this idol I am carving is not God. It is only a material object to help me lift my mind to God. Much like a music can be.”?
Next, imagine God actually commanding the artisan to fashion and item out of wood. Then God changing the substance of the bread leaving only its accidents.
And then God telling the wood carver that He will dwell in the statue on his shelve in order to be present to him.
Again, intent matters. Shooting into a bush thinking a deer is behind it and killing a hunter is a tragedy.
Shooting into a bush knowing a hunter is behind it is murder.
One CANNOT accidentally commit a mortal sin. Idolatry is a mortal sin.
But like I say, that is your task #2.
Your task #1 is to prove God cannot, by His power, change a substance and leave the accidents in existence.
He says He can in Jn 6 and the synoptic Gospels too. And St. Paul concurs.
Jim, regarding your assignments:
Next, imagine a religion that claimed to be God’s spokesman on earth, a religion that believed it held in its storehouse the deposit of faith from the apostles themselves, a religion that believed that it could not fail to teach what the apostles handed on to them from Christ Himself—but forgot for 1,000 years that they were supposed to be worshiping the eucharist, and forgot for 1,000 years that there was no bread left after the consecration.
What would you say of such a religion that makes such claims but fails so catastrophically to live up to them. I would say that perhaps that religion “remembered” not by searching the Scriptures, but by listening to a demonic apparition whispering in their ears.
Where was Eucharistic adoration and transubstantiation for 1,000 years Jim? We’ve been through the synoptic Gospels and John and the Pauline epistles already.
Rome claims that the doctrine of transubstantiation was so fully developed by the end of the 1st century that Ignatius could make an argument for it, and that Justin Martyr in the 2nd century could speak of being nourished by transmutation, but that the doctrine was so underdeveloped by the 4th century that Chrysostom could deny that it ceased to be bread, and so underdeveloped by the 5th century that Augustine could deny that we literally eat Christ’s flesh and Pope Gelasius could accidentally deny that the nature and substance of bread ceased to be in it.
As I have said before: if eucharistic adoration is an ancient practice, then Chrysostom, Augustine and Gelasius worshiped bread. If these men denied that the eucharist ceases to be bread, then eucharistic adoration is not an ancient practice.
Where was eucharistic adoration for 1,000 years, Jim? You would do very well to discover the cause of the idolatry that swept through Europe in the 11th century.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
The Church always worshiped Christ in the Eucharist. The Church never saw the Eucharist as bread. She did not suddenly out of the blue take up worship the Eucharist after 1000 years of celebrating a Protestant memorial meal.
Again Tim, how did the Church pull it off? How did it bamboozle all the “protestant” sheep into bowing down to the Host and believing it to be Christ? And I don’t mean in some isolated region, but all over Europe? How did the Catholic Church dupe the eastern Churches, separated by centuries of Islam, into adopting the same doctrines although they had no contact with Rome for centuries?
Think about it Tim; when the Portuguese got to India in the 1500s, there were Mass saying Christians already there since the time of Thomas the Apostle. They still exist today as Malabar rite Christians.
On their way to India, they ran into Christians in Ethiopia that were saying Mass. In China, they found Nestorians with 7 Sacraments.
They probably didn’t know about the isolated Chaldean rite Christians in Persia, But they were saying Mass too.
Oh, for sure, they didn’t use the word “Transubtantiation” any more than the Orthodox or Armenians do today. But they all believe in the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
Tim,you fail to take into account the several Christian Churches of Apostolic origin that had been cut off from Rome for about 400 years before the 1000 A.D. date. And it wouldn’t be until another 500 years before they would be able to make contact with the west. Even after that, they all still haven’t come back into complete fellowship with Rome to this day.
Yet they all adapted what you call the “mark o’ the beast”.
How so?
Tim,
I’m leaving on another out of the country trip Wednesday and will not be back till next week. Enjoy this discussion with Jim and Bob (I just saw he is back for the attack).
Jim wrote:
“The Church always worshiped Christ in the Eucharist. The Church never saw the Eucharist as bread. She did not suddenly out of the blue take up worship the Eucharist after 1000 years of celebrating a Protestant memorial meal.
Again Tim, how did the Church pull it off? How did it bamboozle all the “protestant” sheep into bowing down to the Host and believing it to be Christ?”
Tim, do you really think that Jim reads anything on your blog? I don’t think he reads, hears or listens to anything you write.
You are dealing with one very “dense” cat.
dense
dens/
adjective
adjective: dense; comparative adjective: denser; superlative adjective: densest
1.
closely compacted in substance.
“dense volcanic rock”
synonyms: thick, heavy, opaque, soupy, murky, smoggy; More
concentrated, condensed
“dense smoke”
antonyms: thin, light
having the constituent parts crowded closely together.
“an estuary dense with marine life”
synonyms: thick, close-packed, tightly packed, closely set, close-set, crowded, crammed, compact, solid, tight; More
overgrown, jungly, impenetrable, impassable
“a dense forest”
antonyms: sparse
2.
informal
(of a person) stupid.
synonyms: stupid, unintelligent, ignorant, brainless, mindless, foolish, slow, witless, simpleminded, empty-headed, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic; More
Tim, just finished reading this – just want to say thanks!
Maria
Thank you, Maria. Glad to have you visiting with us.
Tim
This point by Nick was skipped right over, but it’s quite revealing. He made two points. First, infallible statements (that answer questions) are not important in Christianity. Second, we absolutely must have a mechanism for answering questions with infallible statements. It’s the mere existence of the mechanism that matters, not its function (which is irrelevant). It is elevation of the means over the ends.
This is astounding cognitive dissonance.
All infallible statements are infallible until they aren’t. All true proclamations are true, until they aren’t. All true dogmas are true, until they aren’t.
You don’t need to know which things are infallibly true and which are merely true, as they are both true. If you find out they were not true, just replace them with the new true. You can (and must!) trust the infallible authority, no matter how fallible that authority is.
It all comes down to the same question for Ptotestants and Catholics. We must all answer the same question, according to whom? Protestants answer that question by starting with the presupposition or axiom that the Bible is the only infallible and final authority on faith and morals. Catholics are caught in a circular argument, Rome’ s infallible pronouncements ( although no one RC can tell a Catholic which are infallible for certain) are so because Rome says so. How circular is that.
Hi Tim, I hope you and your family are well and enjoying the holiday. I have made it a point to tell you how much God has used this site in my and my wife’s life in understanding some really important things. Many of my Roman Catholic friends have left Roman Catholicism and believed in the gospel of scripture. This site has been so valuable in many things I have said to them. God is always working. Be well K
Hi, Kevin! Glad to hear it. Have a blessed 2019!
Tim
Miracles happen as a Catholic who believes in the Sacraments. Prayer is efficacious. Sorrow and misery comes from sin. Confession and the Eucharist relieve a Catholic from Sins committed. You Protestants are missing a gift and a treasure! Our faith as Catholics is very deep. Everyone of us. A fallen away Catholic cannot get away from their baptism in the true faith. It will be a part of them and will call them back. After death, for those who remain Protestant, they will know. Coming back to tell their families, might be what they would wish to do. A very good Protestant who searches for the truth and does not preach against God’s church has a greater chance of being acceptable and influential. That is why Catholics like certain of those who almost made it to the Faith of Holy Mother Church.
Sharon, all we are missing is bowing to the image of the beast. Praise the Lord for rescuing me from it!
Sharon said ” confession and the Euchariist relieve a Catholic from Sins committed” neither confession nor the Roman Eucharist can relieve anyone of their sins. The gospel isn’t go out and do your part. Jesus said repent and believe in the gospel Mark 1:15. The gospel according to Jesus is told and believed in, not done.
If you forgive sins they are forgiven, said to the disciples. Also, when 2 or 3 are gathered: When I am with children I ask them if they will forgive the other child. If they do, then they can play together again. Jesus is merciful: various bible quotes attest to God’s mercy. I do think that we should make up for our sins if we have hurt and also “sin no more.” Human beings sin and I’m not going to look up every quote for you. We can also pray for those in Purgatory. How awful if we could not be forgiven. Christ forgave the man who was beside him in the crucifixion and He asks God not to hold sins against others who have hurt Himself. Saints always request this too. Catholics know their Faith!
Sharon said ” when I’m with children I ask them if they will forgive each other, if they do then they can play together again” sounds very Roman Catholic Sharon, unfortunately the gospel thru which a man is saved isn’t conditional like your example. Paul says we are justified ” FREELY by his Grace, not COOPERATING with his Grace as your church has falsely taught. The gospel isn’t conditional, it’s a gift by believing in Christ alone. Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-5. Justification is once and for all complete at the moment of faith. Unfortunately the Roman Catholic church has confused the in us with the for us. Of course this stems from Aquinas saying that a man is predestined in some way to glory by his merit instead of just the goodness of God. Sharon Christ lived the law in our place as our substitute. He fulfilled the law in our place and God offers us the gift of salvation as a gift. Our sins are forgiven past present future as the cross was a blanket across history. Unfortunately your church just won’t let him off the cross. The continual work and sacrifice of the mass for sins negates the one time offering that put sin away. Hebrews 9, 10:14. Rome’s gospel of the enablement to achieve righteouness thru obedience is not the gospel of scripture and can’t save you. In Phillipians 3 Paul counts all of his righteouness as dung as compared to the righteouness that comes from God by faith alone in Christ alone. You can repent of your goodness today Sharon and receive the gift, Christ our righteouness. God bless. I’ve seen many RC friends in the last few years ,including my best friend break free from an oppressive and evil system to embrace the gospel.
“You can repent of your goodness today”…..
This is exactly what my wife and I were like as Protestants for 40 years. We trusted in our goodness to get into Heaven, our Bible reading, our witnessing, our trials through sickness, our going to church twice every Sunday. It wasn’t until we understood and believed the Legal transaction that Christ did during His life and death that the scales fell off and we understood the Good News. We were like Saul of Tarsus, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee of the Pharisees – trying very hard to get into Heaven by our own ways that we thought were pleasing to God. It was only when we realised that the basis for our acceptance with God was perfect righteousness and nothing less, that our eyes were opened to what Christ had done 2000 years ago. He, whilst on Earth, had perfectly kept God’s righteous law in every jot and tittle. But He didn’t do this for Himself. He didn’t need to leave Heaven to prove anything. He left Heaven to save His people! He was willing to give to me, if I would but receive it, all the good works He had done on the Earth. He would transfer all these good works over to my name, as if I had done them all. And, doubly, He had also taken the sins of all who would believe the record in the Scriptures of what He did. And so it was that after 40 years of our own trying, we finally believed that our works were worthless and only the works of Christ on our behalf could save us from condemnation. And it was when we believed this record in Scripture about what Christ had legally transacted on our behalf 2,000 years ago, that the scales fell off, our sins were forgiven, and our righteousness was secure in Heaven and no man, or devil, or doubt, could take it away – ever. The great exchange was complete and the accounts were written in Heaven. Christ alone is our righteousness and this righteousness is received by belief alone, not by my works.
You would almost have to be just about dead not to do any Christ-like works if you had Faith. So, you are splitting hairs. There are people who convert on their death beds and that in itself is an act that brings happiness to his or her family. You are making a stumbling block to prevent your return to the Faith that Christ set up in his Church which is Roman Catholic from the beginning with St. Peter.
Sharon said ” you are making a stumbling block to prevent your return to ” the faith” that Christ set up in his church which is Roman Catholic from the beginning.” How do you know it’s Christ’s church Sharon. Because the Roman Catholic church told you so. If you take the time to read the articles here you will learn that the Bible teaches that the Roman Catholic church is Antichrist. It couldn’t be clearer. Who you going to believe the Catholic church or the scripture? We all have to answer the same question; according to whom?
Great testimony John!
I believe that you are referring to Baptism. When a person is baptized and believes thus in the Trinity, the way God wants us to know him as a Passionist Priest just said for Trinity Sunday, he is washed from his original sins. Immediately, as a newly baptized adult, they will receive the Sacrament of Penance and Eucharist and soon Confirmation. These Sacraments are important. The Eucharist is a Sacrament we can receive daily. When we have our venial sins, the receiving of this Sacrament takes care of those. We go to confession, it is said the bare minimum of once a year. Well, people who are involved in the Faith as ministers, or any of us, can go as often as we like, but, that is the place to confess mortal sins and habitual sins. We have some great opportunities to go to Confession at my parish when we have a candlelight vigil with a priest to hear confession. Before Christmas and Easter many priests, perhaps 4 or more come and the opportunity is there to clear our consciences for the great Holy days. The other times are at request or scheduled times before some Masses. I am not sure what your problem is with these ideas, for God as Jesus Christ is the only perfect human, and His Mother was also conceived without sin in order for her to bear the Son of God. We can emulate her, for she was obedient to the will of God. God set up this way for us to know him and your thinking will not change that.
No Sharon. As a friend of mine wrote recently, “it was its denial of the doctrine of justification by belief alone that prompted Rome to develop the complicated and costly system of masses, confessions, pilgrimages, purgatory that so burdened the people of Europe that, prior to the Reformation. the whole continent was sunk in poverty, superstition and ignorance.”
When Paul was asked ” What must I do to be saved? “, his answer did not include what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Paul’s reply to the question was: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. ” Nothing about confessions, penance, Mary, or masses was in Paul’s answer. Belief in Christ alone is sufficient to be saved. ALL other additions are man-made and are to be shunned. That is why we reject the teachings of your church.
Our parish has adoration and it is well attended. My friend is deeply in prayer and I know it when he prays for me there. There is no idolatry in Adoring the Blessed Sacrament and it is not in vain. If you had ever sinned in a serious manner, or been a victim, as many women or men have, of rape, then you will know how much it means for us to have celibate priests and nuns, a place to go to confess serious sins. It is important that God knows exactly what happened. For we take a lot of blame upon ourselves. I know that my life is much better for being a Catholic. I have trusted the Faith of Protestants, and cannot handle the grey areas of their faith. I totally regret the days when I trusted in Christianity in general. This is pretty much what you are asking me and others to do. I cannot return to those days and do them over, but, “love” is something Catholics know about. They define it better than anyone does. Because Love is God. Love doesn’t tell a woman that she must be afraid to have sex before marriage: a Lutheran. Love doesn’t tell a woman that she has a place to stay with some nurses and then as she trusts him, says “a change of plans” you have to stay with me in my room. Love doesn’t say, I won’t marry you if you continue to smoke, even though we have a relationship of love. Protestants do not know what the word means. With confession, one can admit that they used another person for their own benefit. That they may have lied. That they might have forgotten about God. You are just a man full of deceit to tell me that my Faith is worthless. You come, unknowingly perhaps, but you come from the Liar, Satan himself.
Sharon said ” there is no idolatry in adoring the blessed sacrament” worshipping a piece of bread is certainly idolatry. Jesus calls us to a spiritual relationship with Him. Paul said ” Christ in you the hope of glory, not Christ in bread the hope of glory. Christians have Christ in their heart through the Spirit, not the flesh. Jesus said His words were Spirit , the flesh profits nothing.
Repent of your goodness?
Is it your position, John and Kevin, that keeping the commandments is not essential to salvation?
“Is it your position, John and Kevin, that keeping the commandments is not essential to salvation?”
Keeping the commandments (law) perfectly, is the only basis for entering Heaven. God has never rescinded His law. The law of the Lord is perfect.
As Paul said, “for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
The Bible is unequivocal. None but the doers of the Law is accepted by God. That is an eternal principle. God will not turn from it. He has never changed his mind. A life of perfect obedience–that is to say, a life of righteousness–is the only possible basis of acceptance with the holy and righteous God.
I hope that answers your question Kyle.
May I ask you a question?
On what basis does God accept a man? This is the most fundamental of all questions concerning salvation. Several answers have been given:
1. A life of complete obedience to the Law
2. Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
3. Some other way
Which of the three options above would you choose?
On what basis does God accept a man?
Hmmm. I see you have given the answers to this question as a multiple choice:
1. A life of complete obedience to the Law
2. Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
3. Some other way
The Bible says keep the commandments which basically say: 1. Love God with all your heart, soul, and strength.
And since we believe Jesus is God, He says:
John 14:15“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 15:10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus also gave us a new commandment: John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Paul teaches in Roman 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law…13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
And in other places the bible says have faith in Jesus Christ. Mar 16:16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Act 2:21‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
So if we are to have faith in Jesus, we will believe in what He says and show our love by obeying His commandments and being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins.
And in some places the Bible says to do both:
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
1Jo 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1Jo 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1Jo 3:22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.
Rev 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
So what option would I choose? What the Bible says and the Apostolic Church teaches:
Rev 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
So, yes, keeping the commandments is essential to salvation. I think it is a BIG mistake teaching someone to “repent of their goodness”, especially if they are done in faith. Be doers of the Word and not just hearers.
Thx Kyle for the considered reply.
But perhaps you didn’t see an important word in option 1. The word “complete”.
So, if I may test your patience again: On what basis does God accept a man?
1. A life of complete obedience to the Law
2. Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
3. Some other way
Unless in your reply above you are advocating option 3 from the combination of verses you quoted.
Can I assume option 3?
John, since you have put your question in a nice and neat little box with only the 3 options, you may assume whatever you want. Option 3 could mean both 1 and 2, which is what the Bible says. And by the way, none of those verses which I quoted contained the word “complete”. So assume away, if you must. Did you add that word for some reason?
Kyle, keeping the commandments of God is the result of faith, not the condition of our acceptance before God . That is the righteouness of Christ alone. In Ephessians 2 it says we’ve been saved by Grace thru faith, not of ourselves or a result of works, but solely of the goodness of God. It says we’ve been saved unto good works.
Kevin, I agree that keeping the commandments is the result of faith, but it is a condition of our acceptance before God or else the Bible would have said different. Yes we have been saved by grace through faith, and not of ourselves should anyone boast that they earned salvation. Salvation cannot be earned by works. No one that I know of teaches otherwise. That is the reason we worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. We keep the commandments because we love God by fulfilling the Law in loving one another, just as Paul said in Romans 13. Those kind of faithful works complete your faith(James 2:22) and are pleasing to God(1John 3:22). Why on earth would you tell anyone to repent from doing them?
” but it is a condition of our acceptance before God or else the bible would have said different” The bible never says that our works are a condition of our acceptance. Abraham simply believed the promise and he was righteous. ” Abraham believed God and God counted him righteous. No works or merit in that verse. In fact Romans 4:5 says that God justifies an ungodly man who does NOT work. How does he do that by imputing the righteousness of Christ by faith alone. Our works as described by Paul are our reasonable service of worship. The difference between Christians and Roman Catholics is Catholics are living out a life for acceptance before God, We live out an acceptance we already have and can never be altered. K
Kevin, is it your position that Roman Catholics teach that one is supposed to earn their acceptance before God by works alone without faith?
I believe Roman Catholicism has a false gospel which cannot save. That gospel is the enablement ( God giving prevenient grace to choose to enter into sanctifying grace ) to obtain salvation by obedience in some way. Meriting the merit of Christ. Here is how it works in Rome you do and God gives you grace, the more you do the more God gives you grace. In Chrisianity God gives us grace and we do. Aquinas said that a man is predestined to glory in some way by their merit instead of just the goodness of God. Rome says a man is justified cooperating with his grace. Paul says we are justified as a gift freely by his grace. Thx k
Kevin, by your answer I can readily say that you believe that the Roman Catholics officially teach that one must earn their salvation by works without faith, am I correct?
Kevin, when you said “Abraham believed God and God counted him righteous. No works or merit in that verse”, I think you are misreading it. The word “merit” is not there but “works” is there multiple times:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
Jas 2:23 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.
Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Are you saying that the Bible should have said that a man is justified by faith and not by works alone?
Kyle said ” the word merit is not there ….. but works is there multiple times” no Kyle the verse says Abraham believed God and he was righteous. How is that possible. Read Romans 4: 1-8. Paul takes the works hero of the Jews Abraham and said they meant nothing in terms of his justification. Then Roman’s 4:5 is the death of Roman Catholicism. But to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly: did you get that Kyle. Paul says that God justifies and ungodly man who des not work. How is that possible? Because by believing God counts the righteousness of Christ to our account, much like the wage ( and external thing is credited to the worker). Notice he doesnt say to the one who works his work is credited. No, his wage is credited. Notice the parallel. Our faith isn’t credited, but the external righteousness from Christ, a perfect righteousness.
Kevin, so when you say “no Kyle the verse says Abraham believed God and he was righteous… Paul takes the works hero of the Jews Abraham and said they meant nothing in terms of his justification”, are you saying that Paul is teaching that one is justified by faith alone? Because if you are, then that means Paul and James contradict each other. The way I read it, Paul is saying in Romans that works without faith cannot justify and James says faith without works cannot justify. So my conclusion is that faith alone is useless and works alone is useless. For Paul and James to agree, faith and works must be coupled together for justification. To drive that home, so to speak, if you have faith that you are justified and you do not keep the commandments, then you were not justified in the first place:
1John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1John 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
And you said “Our faith isn’t credited, but the external righteousness from Christ, a perfect righteousness.” To me that sounds like (through faith) one merits the merit of Christ. It’s like a bank account that is given to us by grace when we, through faith, repent and are baptized by water and the Holy Spirit. And the merit of Christ has been deposited into that bank account for us to use every time we call upon His name. His merit becomes our merit because our name is on that bank account. That makes sense to me, and as far as I can tell, that is what the Bible teaches.
Yes, If Paul says that God justifies and ungodly man that does not work and uses Abraham as the example Roman’s 4:5, which he does. So then the logical question arises what is James talking about. Augustine says in his quote that the apostles dont contradict that good works follow justification. James imho is talking about how faith is justified. He uses gives examples of how faith is demonstrated before men. The question for you Kyle is how does Rome come up with a gospel of gracious works when Paul says we are justified freely by his grace. Incidentally justification is always past tense in scripture and complete. Rome’s idea of a final justification based on the life lived is nothing but semi pelagianism. There is no future justification at judgement. Roman’s 4:16 says if a Roman Catholic wants to be justified by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. But I’m going to bow out to alow you to finish with Tim whose articles are spot on on James and justification. Thanks
I still haven’t found a system of works-based justification in the Roman Catholic teaching as you describe, instead they emphasize faith in Christ working through the Holy Spirit as first and foremost. Thanks for your input Kevin.
Kyle,
Would you agree that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar (James 2:21) and that Rahab was justified by her works when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way (James 2:25)?
Thanks,
Tim
Yes, Tim, I see that faith was working with their works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected and that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Don’t you agree, too?
Yes, I believe that Abraham, when he offered his son, Isaac, was justified by works, and not by faith alone. And Rahab the harlot, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way, was justified by works, and not by faith alone.
To continue, would you also agree that we should be “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22), for “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Romans 2:13). Would you agree that this is the teaching of the Scriptures?
Yes, Tim, it appears so.
Thank you, Kyle. Would you also agree that the works by which we are to be justified in James 2 are works of the Law, as in love the Lord your God (James 2:5) and “love thy neighbour as thyself” (James 2:8) for upon these two commands the whole law depends (Matthew 22:40), and that doers of the law in Romans 2:13 “do … the things contained in the law” (Romans 2:14) and “keep the righteousness of the law” (Romans 2:26)? Would you agree that this is the teaching of the Scriptures?
Yes, Tim, all those Scriptures as I read them I believe 100%.
Thank you, Kyle. Would you also agree that in Romans 2:13, when Paul says “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” in that context, the Jews are the hearers and the Gentiles are the doers? For Paul wrote, “For … the Gentiles … do” the law even though they have not heard it (Romans 2:14) but the Jews who have heard the law (Romans 2:17) do not obey it (Romans 2:17-29). Would you therefore agree, in the context of Romans 2, that it is the Gentiles who will be justified, not the Jews?
Ok, yes, Tim. Paul is teaching that it is the obedience to the Spirit of the Law and not the letter that is the key. And it doesn’t matter if it is a Jew or a gentile, God has no partiality, one will be judged according to their actions.
Gal 6:7 – Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
Gal 6:8 – For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Gal 6:9 – Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.
Gal 6:10 – So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
Thank you, Kyle. I appreciate the citation from Galations, and yes, of course, it is true. But my question was about Romans 2. I asked, Would you agree that in Romans 2:13, when Paul says “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” in that context, the Jews are the hearers and the Gentiles are the doers? For Paul wrote, “For … the Gentiles … do” the law even though they have not heard it (Romans 2:14) but the Jews who have heard the law (Romans 2:17) do not obey it (Romans 2:17-29).
I mean, that’s a simple yes/no question. The Gentiles who have not heard the law do the law, and the Jews who have heard the law, do not do it. So, in THAT context, would you agree that the when Paul says “the doers of the law shall be justified” he is referring to Gentiles who do the law. Right?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you said “I appreciate the citation from Galations, and yes, of course, it is true. But my question was about Romans 2. I asked, Would you agree…I mean, that’s a simple yes/no question. ”
And I said “Ok,Tim, yes.” And then I expressed the gist of Paul’s teaching as I read Romans 2 which matches his teaching in Galatians:
Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
Rom 2:13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
And, Tim, you said “The Gentiles who have not heard the law do the law, and the Jews who have heard the law, do not do it. So, in THAT context, would you agree that the when Paul says “the doers of the law shall be justified” he is referring to Gentiles who do the law. Right?”
Yes, Paul uses that as a good example to drive home his point:
Rom 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
So, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or gentile, it pleases God if you keep His commandments.
Is it your position, too, that one should repent of that goodness?
Well, for the purposes of Romans 2, it matters very much if you are a gentile, for Paul says, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law…” and it matters very much if you are a Jew, for Paul says, “Behold, thou art called a Jew…”. So when Paul says, “for when the Gentiles” and “Behold, thou art called a Jew…”, I suspect you may be missing an important point if you take Paul’s argument in Galatians 6 to mean that “it doesn’t matter if it is a Jew or a gentile” in Romans 2. It appears to me that in Romans 2, it matters very much whether you are a Jew or a Gentile because Paul is addressing Jews about Gentiles in a Letter to Gentiles about Jews.
But in any case, it is clear from Romans 2:25 that the uncircumcised doers of the law (Gentiles) will judge the circumcised breakers of the Law (Jews). That is a rather important point, and you miss it if you read Romans 2, and immediately dismiss the Gentile/Jew distinction as soon as you read it. But to my point, the doers of the law are Gentiles and the breakers of the Law are Jews, and the Gentiles will judge the Jews on the day of judgement. Don’t you agree?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you said “But to my point, the doers of the law are Gentiles and the breakers of the Law are Jews, and the Gentiles will judge the Jews on the day of judgement. Don’t you agree?”
I can agree to some extent. Are all Jews included as Law breakers or only the ones who have not come to faith in Christ? I see the distinction that Paul is making here as those who boast as privileged God’s chosen people, versus those who actually act like God’s chosen. Will the gentiles also judge the Jews who become Christians, those who have been grafted back onto the tree?
Rom 11:17 – But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 – do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
Rom 11:19 – You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
Rom 11:20 – Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
Rom 11:21 – for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
Rom 11:22 – Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
Rom 11:23 – And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Rom 11:24 – For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
So, Tim, what do you think Paul means when he says to the gentiles “…IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off”? Should they repent of their goodness?
Thank you, Kyle. So we can agree that the Gentiles who fulfill the law in Romans 2 will judge the Jews who violate the law in Romans 2: “shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?” (Romans 2:27).
Just so, the Queen of Sheba (a Gentile) will rise on the last day to judge the Jews to whom Christ addressed Himself in Matthew 12:
And the Ninevites (Gentiles) will rise on the last day to judge the Jews to whom Christ addressed Himself in Matthew 12:
It seems to be a rather persistent theme with Paul and with Jesus that the obedient Gentiles will rise up to judge the self-righteous, lawbreaking Jews. Do you agree?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you said “It seems to be a rather persistent theme with Paul and with Jesus that the obedient Gentiles will rise up to judge the self-righteous, lawbreaking Jews. Do you agree?”
Ok, Tim, I’ll agree with you to this extent– Jesus is directing His words to that generation of Jews who do not recognize His authority and are unrepentant, as is Paul. These are the branches that have been cut off in Romans Chapter 11. These are the Jews that God has deliberately blinded and hardened:
Rom 11:11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.
Rom 11:12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!
Rom 11:13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Rom 11:14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
(Consequently:)
Rom 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
Rom 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
Rom 11:27 “THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”
Rom 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
So, Tim, who exactly are the Jews that the gentiles will judge on the last day?
And speaking of unanswered questions, what do you think Paul means when he says to the gentiles “…IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off”? Should they repent of their goodness?
Kyle, you asked, “So, Tim, who exactly are the Jews that the gentiles will judge on the last day?”
I think it is pretty obvious from my statement: “the obedient Gentiles will rise up to judge the self-righteous, lawbreaking Jews”. Is that not sufficiently clear?
I think “repenting of their goodness” means repenting of their self-righteousness, but you’d have to ask someone who says we should repent of our goodness. I’m not entirely sure what that means and I have not advocated for that construct. The leper returned to thank Jesus (Luke 17:16). I do not believe the leper should repent of that. The harlot loved God (Luke 7:47). I do not believe she should repent of that. Neither was self-righteous, and therefore neither had occasion to repent of their “goodness.” Believers ought to do good works and are under no obligation to repent of doing them. The leper and the harlot are our examples.
And yet, the leper was not saved by his good works, but by his faith (“And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.” (Luke 17:19)). The harlot was not saved by her good works, but by her faith (“And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” (Luke 7:50)).
Tim, you said:
I think “repenting of their goodness” means repenting of their self-righteousness, but you’d have to ask someone who says we should repent of our goodness. I’m not entirely sure what that means and I have not advocated for that construct. The leper returned to thank Jesus (Luke 17:16). I do not believe the leper should repent of that. The harlot loved God (Luke 7:47). I do not believe she should repent of that. Neither was self-righteous, and therefore neither had occasion to repent of their “goodness.” Believers ought to do good works and are under no obligation to repent of doing them. The leper and the harlot are our examples.”
Thanks, Tim. That is all I needed to hear from you. Like I said, it doesn’t matter to God if you are Jew or gentile, God expects obedience and like Paul says, love of neighbor fulfills the Law. Jesus said:
John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commands.”
John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.”
Self-righteousness/works-righteousness without faith does not please God–simple as that.
Thanks for the dialog, Tim. It has been a pleasure.
May God bless you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
Kyle, you said, “Self-righteousness/works-righteousness without faith does not please God–simple as that.” But we were talking about justification. These same gentiles who obeyed the law were justified apart from it, as Paul said, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28).
Just so, the leper and the harlot and Zacchaeus, and the Roman Centurion and the hypothetical Good Samaritan were all obedient to the law, but were justified apart from it. It is the teaching of the Scriptures that God’s people, by the Spirit, are obedient to the Law, but do not seek to be justified by it, nor are they justified by it.
The error of Rome on this point is to read Romans 2:13 “the doers of the law shall be justified” to mean that the doers of the law shall be justified by the law and the error of Protestants is the read it as a hypothetical impossibility. The Scripture does not say “the doers of the law shall be justified by the law”. The doers of the Law are the believing Gentiles of Romans 2 (a chapter that contrasts the obedient Gentiles with the lawbreaking Jews to show that the obedient Gentiles were more Jewish than the Jews), and yet Paul’s conclusion is that those doers of the Law—e.g., Jesus’ leper, harlot, tax collector, and the Roman Centurion and the hypothetical Good Samaritan—are justified by faith apart from the Law: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” To import their law-works into the righteousness God contemplates in His verdict of justification is to contradict the teaching of Paul and of Christ.
And please note, when Jesus talks about the justification of the Gentiles of Matthew 12, he says they (the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites) will be justified by their words, even though their works abounded. Justified by words, not by their works. A little more study into Matthew 12, and you find that Jesus was referring to their confession of belief that sprang from their believing hearts, which is how Paul learned that “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:10). Justification by words on the last day. Not works. And those words are words of belief by which we received the righteousness of God on the day we first believed the word of God, and the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba are our examples on this. They will be acquitted by their words on the last day, and condemn “this present generation,” as Jesus said. And the words by which they will be acquitted on that day are the words they spoke when they first believed the preaching of the Word of God.
You can hear my lecture on that very point here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeeAD8RIZx0&t=2069s
Justification by faith alone apart from works on the last day is the gospel the Father commanded Christ to teach. We cannot waver from it.
And as for James? He is quite right! Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac, and Rahab was justified by her works when she received the messengers and sent them out by a different way. But James is using justified to mean having the faith of Jesus consistent with the Word of God, for he started his discussion on justification with “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.” For Abraham would not have been acting consistent with his profession if he confessed that the Lord would give him a seed through Isaac but was unwilling to offer him, and Rahab would have been acting inconsistent with her profession of faith (” the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath”) if she did not act in a manner consistent with it. In that sense they were justified by faith and works—their works were consistent with their profession. Just as the Leper’s gratitude was consistent with his belief, and the harlot’s anointing of Christ was consistent with her belief. But on the last day, how will these by justified? By words apart from works (Matthew 12). That is by faith alone, apart from works of the law (Romans 3:23). Note well, that the Lord promises the inheritance to those who obey Him (James 2:5), and yet Paul was told of Christ that inheritance is not of the Law (Gal 3:18). What are we to conclude? God’s children walk in obedience but are justified apart from it. It is the teaching of the Scriptures.
Kyle has demonstrated for us the blindness of Rome: if we say justification by faith apart from works, they accuse us of lawlessness. If we agree that Christians are to walk in obedience, they think we have acknowledged justification by faith and works. In so doing, they miss the teaching of the Scriptures: Christians walk in obedience, and are justified by faith apart from obedience. It is the teaching of the scriptures, and no man can stand before God and bring forth his own works—not even works the Spirit caused him to do—as the ground of his justification. The ground of our justification is the righteousness of God, and it is received by faith alone, apart from works.
Kyle, read the articles on justification here. Tim Kauffman explains James way better than I can. It is important to understand that chapter in James in context. Augustine said this. ” what does the apostle ( Paul) say about Abraham . Abraham was justified by faith. Good works follow justification. Paul and James do not contradict each other”
On what basis does God accept a man?
1. A life of complete obedience to the Law
2. Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
3. Some other way
Hi Kyle,
Yes, there is a very important reason for including the word “complete”. The correct answer is Number 1: The only basis upon which any person is accepted by God is a life of complete obedience to the Law.
The answer I gave, just over two years ago, was option 2, because I thought 1 was the legalistic answer.
But actually, (I’ve since come to realise) answer 2 is the answer of the legalist.
Now faith, (understanding and believing a proposition), implanted in our heart by God, is right at the top of God’s works. It is the grand work of the Holy Spirit. But irrespective of the exalted nature of faith, it never is the basis, foundation, or ground of salvation. One of the perils of the modern religious scene is the idea that it is because of my faith, because I am born again, or because I trust in Jesus, or because I have a relationship with Jesus, that God accepts me.
To say that faith is the basis of acceptance with God is legalistic, because it offers to God something that is within me as the basis of acceptance with God.
If we look at Romans 2: 12, 13, we see a clear teaching: “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” The Bible is unequivocal. None but the doers of the Law are accepted by God. That is an eternal principle. God will not turn from it. He has never changed his mind. A life of perfect obedience–that is to say, a life of righteousness–is the only possible basis of acceptance with the holy and righteous God.
But today in many churches the gospel message preached is that we can jump over the claims of the Law straight into the presence of God. We think that the Gospel means that God is less demanding than he used to be. But this is not so. God demands a life of perfect obedience to his Law. No lame, imperfect, halfway, partial obedience will satisfy his holiness: “the doers of the Law shall be justified.” James says that if we offend in only one point, we are lawbreakers.
In Romans 3:31 Paul argues that the way of faith is not against the Law. Faith establishes the Law. Faith is not the negation of the Law of God. Faith honors the Law. Faith acknowledges that it is only on the basis of answer Number 1–a life of complete obedience to the Law–that God will ever accept a man.
But we now run into an insurmountable problem. Paul argues forcefully, closing every loophole, in Romans 1:13 through 3:20, that all men are facing a terrible predicament. We acknowledge that the Law is good. It came from God. But we cannot keep it.
It is in righteousness and by righteousness that God saves the sinner. He justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5), but he does it in and by righteousness. For “the righteous Lord loves righteousness” (Psalm 11:7).
The righteousness needed by a sinner is a perfect righteousness. It is a perfect keeping of the Law. That is the only basis on which a person can be accepted by God.
But there was only one life that God was well pleased with since the world began. The 33years that Christ was on Earth was the only 33 years out of all 6000, that God could look at and say He was well pleased. And as God looked at Christ and was well pleased with Christ’s works, so must we. We must not look within to our own works. For righteousness is not in us. “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags”. Not our unrighteousnesses but our righteousnesses are corrupt. But Christ is called “the Lord, our righteousness”. How can He be OUR righteousness?
It is as the righteous Judge that God justifies. He is “faithful and just” in forgiving sin (1John 1:9). By his pardons he magnifies his righteousness, so that he who goes to God for forgiveness can use as his plea the righteousness of the righteous Judge.
This righteousness is not within us. It is a legal righteousness. The Bible speaks a lot about our legal standing before God. Law, covenant, sin, righteousness, guilt, condemnation, justification, pardon, and adoption are all legal terms.
Jesus provided the righteousness that God requires, but we are still obligated to agree with God in order to be justified. Christ’s obedience to the law will not help you unless you agree to the transaction. How does that come about? It comes about through (not because of) faith. Faith is assent to the solution that God has provided in Christ Jesus.
To summarise:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
God declares a righteousness. It is a righteousness that has been bought by Christ at the expense of His own blood. God has not become unjust in bypassing His holy Law. He is fully just and He declares a sinner righteous who believes in Jesus. This is the law of faith. Not my own works but the works of Christ alone give me a right standing with God. Indeed, His works and death give to the believer an everlasting righteousness.
John, well said. We can say we are justified by Christ’s righteousness alone. Faith the the alone instrument that receives Christ our righteousness and brings Him to the heart. Love cant do that. Love is always second in natural order because it stretches out to neighbor. Faith is the alone instrument that receives Christ. A righteousness that Luther called alien, outside of us. Truly we are fitted for righteous living through the Spirit. But Paul in Phillipians 3 has 2 columns. His righteousness which he considers dung, and the righteousness of God that comes by faith. All he did he considered ding compared to the righteousness by faith. Nowhere does the bible say we are justified by love. Jesus was not a softer Moses with an easier law of heartfelt obedience as RC teaches, He lived the law in our place and offers it to us as a gift.
Yes, John, I agree. From the beginning, when the Law was transgressed, innocent blood was sacrificed as a remedy. That is why Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Christ’s sacrifice is the one perfect sacrifice acceptable to the Father in perpetuity–once and for all time. We are washed clean by applying the Blood of the Lamb. Happy are we who are called to eat and drink at the banquet of the Lord! How can anyone possibly repent of that goodness?
Hi Kyle,
“How can anyone possibly repent of that goodness?”
Sorry, if I’m a bit slow, I don’t understand you question. The goodness is in Christ, not me. “How could I repent of Christ’s goodness?”, makes no sense to me as a question.
Yes, Kevin, the way I read Paul and James, they do not contradict.
BTW, much of what I wrote above is from John Robbins, Gordon Clark and Horatius Bonar. I find their writings to be very clear. They can be found at: http://trinityfoundation.org
The trinity foundation is a great source.
Kyle, please read Tim’s article Throwing God off the cliff” to me it is one of the most clear and concise distinctions from scripture between the biblical gospel and justification, versus the Roman Catholic ( Judaism) view of error. Tim draws a complete distinction.
Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate your concern.
Kyle, your welcome. Incidentally when I said repent of you goodness, it means repent of your self righteousness. In Philippians 3:9 Paul called his righteousness dung in comparison to the righteousness that came by faith alone in Christ. Paul had 2 columns, his righteousness in one ( dung), and the righteousness that comes from God through faith. The gospel in Rome is the enablement to accrue righteousness needed for salvation thru one’s obedience. It fails everytime Roman’s 10:1-4. The rich young ruler tried to bring his righteousness resume to Jesus, but he didnt get in. We cant bring our obedience to God to justify us. Why? Because our best works are imperfect and stained by sin. Only the perfect obedience of Christ can justify us , and it comes to us thru the alone instrument of faith. ” Romans 4:16 ” therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” Kyle, if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace, it will have to be by faith alone. Our works can only be our reasonable service of worship, not the thing upon which we rely for a final justification. The Roman Catholic system is in complete opposition to scripture. Aptly we can call it antichrist. Thanks K
It is a shame that you have been taught that, Kevin. I have been taught no such thing by the Church. Thanks for your input, Kevin. It has been a pleasure.
May the Holy Spirit fill your heart and kindle in you the fire of His love. And may God bless you in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Go in peace and serve the Lord.
Kyle, no I havent been taught that, Jesus said no one is good except God Mark 10:18 ” Why do you call me good , Jesus answered, No one is good except God . I just quoted Jesus and you didnt address that construct. Incidentally, you said to Tim ” Thanks, that’s all I needed to hear from You. God expects obedience, and Paul says love your neighbor and fulfill the law. ” I dont believe Tim’s answer was reinforcing what you believe the obedience that God ” expects ” means. You believe it is essential in your final acceptance before God. Protestants believe scripture is clear that as good as one thinks his works are, they are all stained in some way by sin and cannot fulfill God’s law. That’s why Christ came to live the law in our place and offer salvation to us as a gift. Isaiah 64:6 ” all of us have become like one who is unclean, and ALL our righteousness are like filthy rags, we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away” Galatians 2:21 ” for if righteousness were thru the law, the Christ died in vain.” Kyle, my righteousness isn’t derived from Christ’s, it is his righteousness. K
Kyle, incidentally according to Jesus no one is good. Mark 10: 18 ” Why do you call me good” Jesus answered. No one is good except God alone.” Jesus didnt even want to be called good. Someone’s false sense of goodness is an impetement to understanding our utter moral bankruptcy before God. I believe the tax collector who cried out for mercy was aware of his utter sinfulness, where the Pharisee thought he was pretty special.
Tim commented at JULY 13, 2019 AT 5:43 AM….(sorry could not see Reply button)
Thx Tim. The distinctions you make are really helpful in understanding the Scriptures.
The sentences “For Abraham would not have been acting consistent with his profession if he confessed that the Lord would give him a seed through Isaac but was unwilling to offer him, and Rahab would have been acting inconsistent with her profession of faith (” the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath”) if she did not act in a manner consistent with it. In that sense they were justified by faith and works—their works were consistent with their profession”,….. clarified a lot of what was pretty foggy in my thinking on these passages.
Hi Tim, you said to Kyle ” and the error of protestants is to read it as a hypothetical impossibilty” Does this mean you think Protestants fail to take obeying the law seriously enough because they dont believe the can keep his law fully? I certainly believe theoretically the law can be obeyed perfectly if it were not for the our sinful flesh, and through the Spirit we should always try to obey his law. Incidentally, forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. Thx K
Kevin,
Thank you. My point here is that Romans 2:13 “the doers of the law shall be justified, not the hearers only”, based on the context, can be read “the believing Gentiles shall be justified, not the unbelieving Jews”. Just read the context and you’ll find that those justified in this chapter are the uncircumcised Gentiles rather than the circumcised Jews. That Paul has the actual obedience to the law in mind is shown by Romans 2:26-29:
Here, the obedient Gentile is clearly circumcised in the heart, putting to shame the disobedient Jews circumcised only in the flesh. We are talking about believing obedient Gentiles.
That said, Paul insists in Romans 3:28 that the doers of the Law (Gentiles in this context) shall be justified by faith apart from law works (Romans 3:28).
I expand on this in much more detail in Romans 2:13 and the Jealousy Narrative, available here:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=310
And to our point, Kyle’s understanding of the scripture is incomplete, for he has not understood that Paul was talking about law-abiding Gentiles being justified by faith alone apart from works, not law-abiding Gentiles being justified by faith and works. It’s the problem with the whole Roman system. But regarding Protestants, I think their failure is to understand that Paul was actually talking about believing Gentiles, not hypothetical gentiles, in his argument.
Best,
Tim
Tim, thanks. I agree with that point you made about Protestants. Incidentally , the clarity you bring on Romans 2, the jealousy narrative in scripture, justification, James, and juxtaposition with RC system should be a must read for all Protestants. Very clear. Uncircumcised gentiles who have been circumcised in their heart are believing christians and they obey God’s law, and they will judge the unbelieving circumcised jews who break the law. The irony to what Judaism and its modern partner Roman Catholicism believe. Evil religions. The false security of works in justification. Imagine what the jews thought in Romans 4 when Paul talked about Abraham in that way!
Tim, I just read your article at Trinity foundation. Excellent. Is it your belief that the NT Wrights, Stellman, Federal vision, Piper, etc, the get in by grace stay in by works crowd or final justification based on works in some way crowd , as well as the RC gospel, they are under the same umbrella and in the same fatal position as the Jews in Ezekiel trusting in their own righteousness who say that isn’t fair and those in Romans 10:1? Are they in your opinion not really believing the gospel of scripture? Iow, is it fair to say that trusting in works in anyway to justify you negates true repentance and belief in the biblical gospel? Thanks
“But regarding Protestants, I think their failure is to understand that Paul was actually talking about believing Gentiles, not hypothetical gentiles, in his argument.”
Thx Tim. The penny just dropped!
Tim, I also wanted to tell you I read Robbins back and forth with the Wgitehorse Inn people and their continually bringing on religious non Christian guests for their wisdom. Have you read that? Robbins is great.
Hi Kevin,
That is a great piece by Dr Robbins.
You might like to listen to his lectures critiquing N. T. Wright’s teaching on the Trinity website if you haven’t already. They are under Collection 13, The Justification Controversy, 5 lectures. http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php?_ga=2.163891260.226068317.1563052569-482945308.1557826943
John, Robbins and Tim are 2 of the best theologians of our time that not many know about. I’ll look forward to this. Keep studying the eschatological argument here against Rome, its compelling and it’s a more important approach than the justification argument, although that’s also important.
Agreed. Tim, John Robbins and Gordon Clark have explained the Scriptures to my wife and I with a clarity we have never come across before. I have listened and read many Seminary professors in our day and it is a rare thing to find any who will even define their terms before launching in to their theses, whatever the topic may be. Biblical Theology, with its loose approach to how the Bible is put together, seems to reign in seminaries at the expense of Systematic Theology.
John, just so you know, I say that coming to Out of His mouth saved me for having to pay for a seminary degree! Lol. The Lord has used what I’ve learned here to completely change me and equip me to go out and make a defense in a more informed way! K
Tim, very concise explanation to Kyle. Thanks
Tim, I also agree with John, you explained justification by faith alone and how that is consistent with our works justifying our profession. Very well done.
Hi Tim and Kevin,
I really appreciate the discussions you guys have. Gives me lots to think about and I find I often need to change my ideas based on your discussions and further research on the Scriptures. So thx for that.
I came across a short essay, in two parts, on Ligonier recently discussing N. T. Wright and his idea of ‘Future Justification’. The critique of Wright’s position seems quite sound. The fellow writing is a Presbyterian minister and his explanation of some Scripture relating to the final judgement is very compelling.
Can I please ask for your feedback on the articles?
The relevant points are from Arguments #3, #4, #5 in the essay. Thx.
The two parts of the article are at:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-part-1/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-part/
PS. I do not agree with the author on his use of C. S. Lewis at the end of the essay. Lewis denied imputation and many other doctrines.
John, I’m not with NT Wright on a final justification based on works. This is what is called the new perspective on Paul. Wright to me doesnt have a good foundational understanding of the Reformers here. The author makes a good counter argument. One verse that has always struck me is Romans 5:10 ” for if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God thru the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved by HIS life” Paul doesnt say by our lives, but His we will be saved. Another verse 1 Corinthians 1:30 ” it is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus , who has become for us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” In the beginning of 1 Corrinthians Paul says to the rag tag Corinthians ” to those have been sanctified” Also in Hebrews 10 it talks about sanctification in the past tense. So even as our sanctification is the process of God sanctifying us through His word in our present life, to Paul it is accomplished already in Christ. In Ephessians Paul says believers are already seated with Christ in the heavelies. I think Fesko makes the point that in a sense when the a person believes the eschatological judgement has been moved up. When Christ was raised for our justification Roman’s 4:25 we were raised, He being the first fruits and us being the rest of the crop to come. The author of the article points to John 5: 24 which says he who hears my word and believes it has eternal life and has passed out of judgement into life. Pretty clear. I see no evidence for a future justification based on the life lived , on the contrary John says in 1 John that we can know that we have eternal life 1 John 5:13. Truly God will reward His works at judgement but not with justification. Roman’s 5:10 says I’m saved by his life. NT Wright tries to come and change 500 years of reformation history. No way.
Thx Kevin.
I was wondering if you could give me your view specifically on the essays as they pertaining to the Judgement seat of Christ, or the Day of Judgement. Sorry for being unclear.
Yes, NT Wright is wrong, dead wrong on JBFA. But if you wouldn’t mind letting me know if you agree or not with the author’s view on the day of judgement, I would appreciate that. It’s just that I haven’t heard this view before from the Scriptures, but it seems to be correct. Here are the links again to parts 1 & 2. Thx.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-part-1/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-part/
John, I agree with the author on just about everything. To be specific I believe Fesko has the same position on Revelation that those resurrected to life are not judged by their works because they are believers covered by the righteousness of Christ, yet those resurrected to death are those who didnt believe. They will be held accountable. Or as Paul says if Christ isn’t raised we are still in our sins. I believe when Fhrist was raised so was the believer acquitted. Therefore our physical resurrection will be in accordance with our positional standing. Yet those resurrected to death are indeed still in their sins and guilty of breaking God’s law. On judgement day Christians pass through having been acquitted in Christ, and those who have rejected the gospel will not. Hope this helps. K
John, let me be more specific. Phillips sounds to me like he has read Fesko on judgment and justification. I agree with the already/ not yet position. We are already acquitted and raised according to scripture in a positional sense, and yet are living out our lives in Christ. But as far as judgment John 5:24 says we have already passed out of it, so there is no judgment in relationship to our works, only reward. In Hebrews 9 Jesus return will hot be for judgement of sins, the author is clear when he returns for his people it is life. Hebrews 9:28 ” so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation WITHOUT reference to sin to those who eagerly await him.” Believers have no worry in judgement of their works. That’s why these faith plus guys are so bad.
John, pull up Fesko Paul on justification and judgement. Read it. K
Excellent! Thanks for the explanation Kevin. I agree with what Phillips said, but you know, I had not seen those verses, particularly those in Revelation, used like that. I found them, and your explanation, to be very comforting. Truly salvation is of the Lord.
Tim, the more I read Romans 2 verse 5 becomes clear. It is the unrepentant and defiant that break God’s law and therefore show they aren’t believers, yet the Gentiles that keep it instinctively have had the law written on their heart and believe. Only the Spirit can lead men bvb to repentance. This is a separate argument from Roman’s 3 that clearly teaches the one time and complete justification is apart from obedience but only of faith. Remarkable k
John, ya, Fesko goes into those verses and until I read his full case I didn’t know. He convinced me with scripture. K
Hi Kevin. I have not heard of Fesko before. Upon Googling some of his articles, I notice he is enamoured with the Westminster Seminary variety of Biblical Theology, derived from Geerhardus Vos. Personally, I steer clear of Vos, as I see him as a forerunner to and foundation upon which Van Til brought forward his destructive (and now popular) theology of paradox. But I shall proceed gingerly with Fesko to see what he writes about the day of judgement. Thx.
About Fesko and Westminster I’m not sure, I think he is right on the paradigmatic and declarative nature of the resurrection and judgment. Read Fesko on judgement and let me know what you think. He makes a case from scripture.
Hi Kevin,
I read the following but found it confusing. Thx.
https://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/paul-on-justification-and-the-final-judgment
John, what do you find confusing? Be specific. We can break it down bit by bit. Fesko is saying that there is a lack of study on how judgment has been moved up for believers in a forensic sense, the imputation of righteousness, and Christ declaration as Son of God in Romans 1. When Christ was declared righteous it was also our declaration, believers. In his view there are 2 groups of people in Revelations for instance, those resurrected to life ( believers) , and those to judgment ( unbelievers) . I think he defends from a scripture, that the believer has already passed out of judgement into life John 5: 24. So in essence when the resurrection takes place believers will pass through judgment since it is based not on our righteousness, but Christ’s. In this sense when Christ was raised so were we, him being the first fruits Paul says with us the rest of the crop to follow. I find Fesko’s view of Paul’s argument compelling. K
John, I reread Feeko article again. He is simply saying that Vos, with whom he agrees on this subject, is saying the final judgement for the believer is the declarative, forensic, and judicial event for the believer. Fesko proves his case to me that at the resurrection of Christ Roman’s 4:25 Roman’s 1 Christ was declared righteous and so were those in Christ. This moves judgment up in a judicial forensic sense to the time of faith because Christ is first fruits meaning the rest of the crop will follow. In Romans 8 Paul says we groan and wait for our adoption as sons. Adoption happens at the beginning of the relationship and is legal. We can say at the moment Abraham believed God he stood righteous before the bar of God Galatians 3:6. Fesko and Vos point out that we now live in the already/ not yet. I actually believe this concept. It sure looks like to me scripture teaches that when Christ was raised and declared righteous so were we. In first John 5:13 he says believers can know they have eternal life. This doesn’t mean for the believer to be aoragant or haughty, but a true understanding of our acquittal which cannot change brings peace and hope. Paul says if Christ isn’t raised we are still in our sins and our faith is useless 1 Corinthians 15:14. Notice that faith is the focal point. Paul intimates that when we believe we are no longer in our sins. That’s and amazing statement since as we still sin as believers. What is he saying. He is talking about the judicial nature of the resurrection. We aren’t in our sins because we have become “” the righteousness of God” in him. 2 Corrinthians 5: 21. This concept is under taught in the church imho. I think it’s because of the Roman Catholic lie of presumptive. Believers who take account of themselves and find they are in the faith can have assurance of salvation. To not is to deny what the resurrection accomplished, namely our salvation. K
Hi Kevin,
Thx for your help with this.
I think that what Fesko says about their being no judgement of believers on the Last Day to be quite helpful.
I was confused over his use of the word justify or justification though. As I have re-read him several times on this I do disagree strongly with his take on that.
But his use of verses like John 5:24 were an insight I had not seen before (until I read Phillips). That part I found good, that there is no condemnation, or judgement, for believers on the last day.
Cheers
What do you disagree with on Fesko’s justification definition?! Even Roman Catholic theologians like Brown now admit Daikaiosinae is judicial in meaning. The Holy Spirit chose his words perfectly. Roman’s 5:19. For as thru one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners, even so thru the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteousness” this is imputation. Counted regarded other words. We are sinners by hereditary right, and we are righteous judicially acquitted thru Christ’s obedience. 5:10 says we will be saved by His life not ours. Roman’s 8: 1 there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ, same word. Restated there is now justification for those… k
Hi Kevin,
I do not disagree with your understanding of justification. I think in every comment you have made on this blog it has been a very good defence of the justification the sinner by the death of Christ. But Fesko is not tying our justification to the death of Christ. He is tying it to Christ’s resurrection. The last sentence in the essay summarises his position: “In this regard, then, with the apostle Paul not only must we look to the crucified Christ in our justification, but even more so to the resurrected and justified Messiah.”
That is wrong.
Thx.
Forgive me, I’m not understanding the distinction? Roman’s 10: 9,10. ” for if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Seems like Paul is tying believing to the resurrection. It’s not either or John. Maybe you aren’t totally acquainted with imputation. We say active and passive obedience of Christ. Active doing what’s God law requires, passive suffering for his people. J Gresham Machem ” every event of his life was a part of his payment of the penalty of sin, and every event of his life was a part of that glorious keeping of the law in our place.” So we must in part look to his resurrection as our declaration of righteousness. It doesnt mean we don look to the cross, but certainly Paul emphasises the resurrection in Romans 10:9. K
Hi Kevin,
Thx again for what you wrote above.
We may be talking at cross-purposes here. I was critical of Fesko and his making the resurrection of Christ the grounds of our acceptance before God.
Rather than reply specifically to your last comment, might I ask you to listen to Dr Robbins on subject? He deals masterfully on the topic of the death/resurrection of Christ and the false teaching pervading the protestant churches today about the resurrection as it pertains to the subject of justification. Only if you have the time of course, but I think you will enjoy the lectures. After that, I would like to continue the discussion, if you wish. The lectures are under Collection 13, The Justification Controversy, 5 lectures. http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php?_ga=2.163891260.226068317.1563052569-482945308.1557826943
Anyway, let me know what you think.
Cheers
John, I find Robbins compelling on this as he is on most other subjects. I completely agree that ” it is finished” our justification was by his blood shed on the cross. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. We are not to look to his resurrection as the grounds for our justification. If that is what Fesko is saying then I will re examine his position. Paul does say in Roman’s 10:9 if we believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead” we will be saved. It is true that his resurrection is not the grounds of our justification, but Paul says we are believe God raised him from the dead. It would be great to hear Tim weigh in on this. The word in my bible says in 4:25 that he was raised for our justification, yet Robbins says it was because of our justification. Interesting. John, I’m not sure Fesko is making the resurrection the grounds of our justification, but if he does intimate this he is wrong. K
John, how do you interpret 1 Cotinthians 15 ” for if Christ is not raised you faith is useless and you are still in your sins” could you address this specifically? Thanks k
Hi Kevin
Thx for the comments above. I think the interpretation is plain. If He is not raised, then what Jesus said before, when He was alive, is a lie and God has not vindicated Him. Remaining in the grave would have been an indication that He was not the fulfilment of the Scriptures. That’s what the disciples thought in Luke 24 ” But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel:…. (but obviously it was not, since He’s dead still 3 days later)”. His resurrection was God’s ultimate re-declaration “this is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.” It is a glorious part of the Gospel and it is a great comfort to all God’s people. But, but, but it is not the ground of our salvation. That was accomplished when He cried, “it is finished!” There the great exchange was made.
Yes, do re-read Fesko carefully when you have the time. He means what he says about the resurrection ….and I don’t agree with it. His last sentence is his summary position.
Cheers
Hi John, thanks for your response. But you avoided the what the verse says It says if he wasn’t raised our faith is useless and we are still in our sins. Paul says in Roman’s 10: 9 that if believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead we will be saved. Roman’s 4:25 says he was raised for our justification. I dont deny that Christ work on the cross was finished and that Christ’s righteousness is the sole grounds for our justification which is by faith alone , however the resurection was something Paul said without we would have useless faith and would still be in our sins. He also said it was something to be believed to result in salvation Roman’s 10:9, 10.
Correction, Paul says if you confess and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead you will be saved. It seems Paul is saying it was something to be believed resulting in salvation.
John, I reread Feskos whole article and his summary. I completely disagree that Fesko says that the resurection in any part is the grounds of our justification. In fact he talks about looking to the crucifixion. He said rightly that Jesus drank the cup of wrath in our place. We only look to the resurection in the sense it reveals our justification. This is consistent with Paul saying in Romans 10:9,10 that if we confess Jesus as Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. It sure seems clear the resurection should be the focus of a person’s belief. Again 1 Corinthians 15 is clear that if Christ isn’t raised ( in other words still in the grave) then we are still in our sins and our faith is useless. 4:25 says he was raised for our justification. Pretty clear. Now Robbins tries to say that for means because of. That’s a little engineering imho, unless he knows something about the word Fesko doesnt. No one is saying that the resurection was the grounds for our justification as far as I can see. But certainly it seems to me that the resurection was the declaration of justification for Christ and by extension ours. Just my thoughts. I’m not a theologian. Maybe Tim can weigh in. Thanks John k
Hi Kevin,
Sorry, I just saw this.
<<>>
Of course you are entitled to this opinion, but I was just quoting Fesko. He said, “In this regard, then, with the apostle Paul not only must we look to the crucified Christ in our justification, but even more so to the resurrected and justified Messiah.”
So I’d be interested how you read these words. He says, “with the apostle Paul not only must we look to the crucified Christ in our justification”. He quite plainly says “not only”. What he means by “look to” I don’t really know. Perhaps he means believe, that is, ‘understanding with assent to a set of propositions’. So if I am correct, then he is saying, “with the apostle Paul not only must we believe in the crucified Christ in our justification…. “.
I don’t really care what is added after that. Whether it’s the resurrection, or adoption, or the Trinity etc, the addition is then saying that my justification depends on something else in addition to Christ’s death.
Am I incorrect in my reasoning here? Thx.
Not sure why the above is all in italics???
John, ” the addition” ” depends on something else” 1 Corithinans 15 ” for if the dead are not raised , not even Christ has been raised, And if Christ is not raised your faith is worthless and you are still in your sins.” Seems like without the resurection the cross is useless for us according to Paul. In Romans 4:25 he says he was delivered over for our sins and raised for our justification. Is Paul ” adding” the resurection in the last 2 verses? It seems without the resurection we are still in our sins and have useless faith. And then in Rimans 10: 9 which you have not addressed Paul said the fact that God raised him from the dead is to be assented to in belief. This isn’t an ” addition” it’s part of the twofold act of God in his plan for our salvation.
Thx very much Kevin.
On Romans 4:25, please let me quote Bonar, from his book The Everlasting Righteousness. “The manifold blessings flowing from resurrection and ascension are not to be overlooked, but nowhere does Scripture teach justification by these. The one passage sometimes quoted to prove this declares the opposite (Romans 4:25), for the words truly translated run thus: “He was delivered because we had sinned, and raised again because of our justification.” It was because the justifying work was finished that resurrection was possible. Had it not been so, he must have remained under the power of the grave. But the cross had completed the justification of his church. He was raised from the dead. Death could no longer have dominion over him. The work was finished, the debt paid, and the surety went forth free. He rose not in order to justify us, but because we were justified. In raising him from the dead, God the Father cleared him from the imputed guilt which had nailed him to the cross and borne him down to the tomb. “He was justified in the Spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16). His resurrection was not his justification, but the declaration that he was “justified.” That resurrection in which we are one with him does not justify us, but proclaims that we were justified – justified by his blood and death.”
I hope this is helpful. He says it better than I ever could.
Thx
“Seems like without the resurection the cross is useless for us according to Paul.”
Yes, but why does Paul argue this way?
He has two scenarios that he is contrasting.
(1) Christ has died and is still dead.
(2) Christ has died but is risen from the dead.
If (1), then this is evidence that God has not been pleased with Christ’s work. That means there is still no satisfaction of the Father’s justice. That means I am doomed as I cannot meet the just requirements of the Law.
But if (2), then the Father is satisfied with the work of Christ and I am free from the penalty of the law. Hooray!
Some in Corinth were saying there was no resurrection. Paul argues the logical implications of believing that – if that is true, then you are still in your sins, since the Father has not accepted the sacrifice of Christ. But, he counters, Christ has risen, therefore this shows that Christ’s work has been accepted.
But that is not to say that the resurrection paid for my sins.
I agree
<<>>
That’s right Kevin, I agree. We need to believe the Gospel, as Paul says in 1Cor. 15:1-4. There he includes Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, all as taught in the Old Testament, or as he says, “according to the Scriptures”.
But that is not to change the ground of our salvation. How can a sinner get into Heaven? How can a sinner stand before a holy God. ONLY if he has kept the Law of God perfectly. But how can a sinner do that? ONLY if he has his slate wiped clean and it is filled up with all the good works of the Law. But how can that happen? How can God do that and remain just? ONLY by imputation. When did He do that? When the Son of God loved me and gave Himself for me. Not afterwards at His resurrection, but at His death.
<<>>
Sorry, I thought that was a clear implication from what I said from Luke 24 – “Remaining in the grave would have been an indication that He was not the fulfilment of the Scriptures. That’s what the disciples thought in Luke 24 ” But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel:…. (but obviously it was not, since He’s dead still 3 days later)”.” The disciples thought Jesus was going to redeem Israel, (i.e. redeem – save His people from their sins) but they said, since He’s now dead we see our trust was misplaced. Jesus rebukes them for thinking that way.
BTW, I think I have listened to those lectures by John Robbins about 8 or 9 times now and I always learn something fresh. So I would be interested to hear what you think about Fesko in light of those lectures. I think Robbins and Fesko are on opposite sides of the table regarding the grounds of our salvation. Fesko, it seems to me, adds to the death of Christ.
Thx.
I thought the above answered Romans 10:9?
Personally I do not believe that the resurrection is the grounds of our justification. The grounds of our justification is ONLY the righteousness of Christ. Paul asks me in 10: 9 to assent in belief that God raised him from the dead. In that way I look to the resurrection not as the grounds but rejoicing that when he was declared righteous so was I . I don’t think Fesko is advocating the resurrection being the grounds of our justification. He is only arguing that the resurrection was part of the twofold plan of God in our salvation. Imho k
“He is only arguing that the resurrection was part of the twofold plan of God in our salvation.”
Perhaps you are right there.
Cheers
John, let me just say I relistened to Robbins. He is dead on. And to the extent that Fesko or any other makes anything other than blood shed at the cross the grounds for our justification it’s flat wrong. As far as our inner man going being raised with Christ in the sense Paul talks I support the already not yet. However the resurection is never the grounds for justification. The bible says we are justified by faith alone and justified by his blood. In fact Romans 5: 10 says we are saved by his life not ours. Robbins is an amazing teacher, as well as Tim Kauffman!
Thx very much Kevin.
Regarding Dr Fesko’s idea, giving him the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I wonder, what about those millions who have already died? Are they “justified” at the final Day? They are already in paradise (thief on the cross), they are quite conscious of their state now and of those in heaven and those in hell (rich man and Lazarus). So if believers are already in Heaven and those in Hell know they are there and those in Heaven know where they are, isn’t it a bit odd, to say the least, that God is going to declare their righteousness on the Last Day? Who is He going to declare it to that doesn’t know already? It would be like a newspaper headline today “Trump is President of America”! Everyone would shake their heads “yeah we know that… Why are you telling us years after the event?”
It was just a thought I had when considering his thesis.
BTW, trinityfoundation.org have the double ebook, Not What My Hands Have Done, part 1 by Bonar, Part 2 by Hodge. IMHO, this is worth its weight in gold.
All good points. I like Robbins view he was raised because of our justification. The idea is as he was raised the first fruits we will follow. Since we are in Christ we are truly seated in the heavelies with him adopted with an inheritance which cannot fade away. That’s why the idea that the RC says assurance for the believer is presumption is awful. The believer must have assurance as he lives his life in Christ. Thats why the gospel and the doctrine of justification must be preached along with the law.
Thx Kevin.
Can you recommend any books/essays on the subject of Adoption?
Cheers
Horton’s view of being relocated from the court room to the living room is interesting. He talks about adoption always happening in the beginning of the relationship and it being a legal part. I’m not sure which book of his I read it in. But it’s good. He talks about the legal aspects and relational aspects of our relationship to God.
Okydokey, thx Kevin.