Follow
In Romans 2:6-10, we read what appears to be an explicit statement of salvation by works: God will render to each according to his deeds—eternal life to those who do well and “worketh good,” and wrath to those who “doeth evil” and disobey. Roman apologist Tim Staples of Catholic Answers explains the Roman Catholic interpretation:
Paul made very clear in Romans 2:6-8 that good works are necessary for attaining eternal life.
He cites James 2:24, as well. As we noted, Jason Stellman, a recent convert to Roman Catholicism, made the same point in his response to our post, “Romans 2:13 and the Jealousy Narrative.” There is a simple answer to Rome’s interpretation here, but to understand Paul and James, we will spend a few moments with Ezekiel, because both apostles appeal to him so explicitly. They both implore us to be doers of the law, and not hearers only (Romans 2:13, James 1:23-24), and they get this from Ezekiel:
… they sit before thee as My people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. … for they hear thy words, but they do them not. (Ezekiel 33:31-32)
There are other examples of their use of Ezekiel. When Ezekiel says, “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression” (33:12), we can hear his echoes in James: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (2:10). When Ezekiel says “I will judge you every one after his ways” (33:20), we hear his echoes in Paul: “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6). Ezekiel 33 is not the only place where God is said to render to each according to his deeds, but in that chapter we have three key elements that are also present in Romans 2—which will be our focus today—and they are expressed in the same terms:
- “doers of the law” vs. “hearers” only (Ezekiel 33:21-32);
- God’s judgment according to our deeds (33:20); and
- life for the obedient vs. death for the disobedient (33:18-19).
We might even add that when Paul asks the Jews who preach against adultery and idolatry whether they might also be engaging in these very sins (2:22), we hear Ezekiel’s voice: “Ye … lift up your eyes toward your idols, … and ye defile every one his neighbour’s wife” (33:25-26).
Certainly, when Paul complains of the Jews, that “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written” (Romans 2:24), he has Ezekiel in mind (Ezekiel 20:14, 22, 36:20, 21, 22, 23): e.g., “But I had pity for Mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen…”
But Paul’s reliance on Ezekiel is broader even than this. We note that Ezekiel compared Israel to “her elder sister,” Samaria, and to her “younger sister,” Sodom (16:46), and said that Israel was so bad, she made Sodom and Samaria look good:
“Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.” (16:52)
The connection becomes more clear when we know that Sodom was known for her sexual deviance (Genesis 13:13, 19:5), and Samaria for her idolatry (Isaiah 10:10-11). This is how Paul introduces the behavior of the Gentiles in Romans 1:23-27, for they “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, … [and] burned in their lust one toward another.” There are other sins exposed in Romans 1:29-31, as there are in Ezekiel, but it is notable that Paul starts his Jealousy Narrative by highlighting the sins of Israel’s elder and younger “sisters.”
We can therefore hear the echoes of Ezekiel when Paul says, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, … for thou that judgest doest the same things” (2:1). That is Ezekiel’s tune, and Paul is singing with him on the refrain.
Paul’s use of Ezekiel matters to us because at the point when we are most inclined to hear Paul saying that God justifies people based on their works (Romans 2:6-10), is the very point at which the Jews were most offended at God for being unfair (Ezekiel 33:17-20). Listen as God explains through Ezekiel that He will repay them according to their deeds, and notice that the Jews thought He was being grossly unjust:
Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. (Ezekiel 33:17-20)
We can only understand Romans 2:6-10 by first understanding why the Jews thought God was being unfair. The answer is before us in Ezekiel 33. Read what God had just said to them, and see if you can find what bothered the Jews so much when He said He would render to each according to his deeds:
To the righteous: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: … if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; …he shall die for it. (33:12-13)
To the wicked: “As for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; … if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right … None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him … he shall surely live.” (33:13-15)
The Jews responded to this as the elder brother did in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), and as the early laborers did in the Parable of the Laborers (Matthew 20):
“That’s not fair!”
Had He been manifested to them in the flesh, we can imagine them ushering Him out of town and throwing Him over a cliff, as the Jews attempted to do to Jesus in Luke 4:29. The reason they thought it was unfair is simple: this was an invitation to repent and be freely forgiven. But if the self-righteous who “trust to his own righteousness” would not repent of his error, not one of his righteous deeds could help him. Yet if the wicked would turn from his sin, not one of his sins would be held against him. Do we not see Jesus’ parables here? Do we not see the harlots and tax collectors “entering in” and the chief priests and the elders of the Jews left outside? Do we not see the Two Sons of the Parable (Matthew 21:28-12): the first who “said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went,” and the second who “said, I go, sir: and went not”?
But there is more. This was not just a call for the Jews to turn from sin. It was an invitation to be born again, for that is what a “new heart” and a “new spirit” entail. In Ezekiel 18:24-30, the same offer had been made, on the same terms, and the Lord summarizes it as an invitation to repent and be born again:
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 18:30-31)
Even back in Ezekiel’s days, the offer “do that which is lawful and right” and live, was in the context of having a new heart and a new spirit, the fruit of which was obedience. There were only two options: to trust in your own righteousness and die in your flesh with a heart of stone, or to be born again, repent and live in the Spirit with a heart of flesh. And obedience to the law is a fruit of this rebirth.
When explaining the parable of the Two Sons, Jesus said the harlots and tax collectors were signified by the first son, “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and … the publicans and the harlots believed him” (Matthew 21:32). When these harlots and tax collectors believed, they asked John, “What then shall we do?” He answered that having believed the gospel, they should love their neighbor (Luke 3:11), stop coveting their neighbor’s goods (Luke 3:13,4), and stop bearing false witness (Luke 3:14). In other words, the fruit of rebirth is believing (Matthew 21:32) , and the fruit of believing is obedience to the law.
This is the same as what we see in Ezekiel when he says, “But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby” (Ezekiel 33:19). Repent and live! With a new heart and a new Spirit, obedience to the law will be the fruit. That this is Paul’s meaning in Romans 2 is evident from his own words leading up to his use of Ezekiel here. He has accused the Jews of doing exactly what they did in Ezekiel’s day: they refused God’s call to repentance, and opted rather to keep their hearts of stone:
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Romans 2:4-5).
Romans 2:6-10, therefore, is not an invitation to merit eternal life by our good works. It is Paul reminding the Jews that when God called on men to repent rather than to perish in their disobedience, the Jews kept their hearts of stone and continued to trust in their own righteousness, while the believing Gentiles have exchanged their hearts of stone for hearts of flesh, and entered in. Now think of the gross iniquities of the Gentiles in Romans 1, and imagine them repenting, and God saying to them, “None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” You can see why this makes the Jews jealous, which was Paul’s express purpose in writing this letter to the Gentile believers (Romans 11:11-14).
When Paul said “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds,” it was an invitation to repent and receive the righteousness that comes by faith. It was not an invitation to merit eternal life by our obedience. When Jesus addressed a Parable to them “which trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Luke 18:9), He told them of a Tax Collector who turned from his sin and went home justified. When Jesus encountered a young man who trusted in his own righteousness, He told him to love his neighbor, but he would not (Mark 10:21). These are the echoes of Ezekiel 33 and 18. When He encountered a repentant tax collector (Luke 19:9), He called him “a son of Abraham.” These are the echoes of Ezekiel 33:15, “If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.”
Are we to be surprised that Paul taught what Jesus taught him (Galatians 1:11-12), or that Jesus taught that which He Himself had revealed to Ezekiel? Nor should we be surprised that Paul makes the Jews jealous by showing that the Gentiles are better at obeying the law than the Jews, and that it is Gentiles, not Jews, who answered God’s call to “make you a new heart and a new spirit” (Ezekiel 18:31) and repent and “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).
So even though it clearly teaches works are needed for salvation once the text is properly decoded it is actually teaching Sola fide. Amazing. Just the opposite of what the text actually says. Protestants often pull a similar rabbit out of their hats with the epistle of James.
Wiki sayeth:
Ken, you sound perturbed. Anything we can help with?
Peace to you on your journey.
Remember, Kenneth?
Point them to OL (but ultimately Christ),
Andrew
Dear Kenneth,
I have read many treatises on why the Ark of the Covenant signifies Mary—the gold plating means Mary was sinless. Uzzah’s death means no man can enter, John seeing it in heaven means Mary was assumed—et cetera. That is reasoning from the non-propositional to the doctrinal, and it is received by Roman Catholicism because it is consistent with Roman teaching. And yet is is a very unreliable hermeneutic.
Yet I come to you reading Romans as if Paul was trying to make the Jews jealous—which he himself wrote that he was—and you respond as if I am reading tea leaves.
I might offer for consideration that your objection is the one the Jews offered to Paul: “Even though it clearly teaches that Abraham’s descendants will be saved, once the text is properly decoded by Paul, it actually teaches that Gentiles will be saved.”
Surely, there is a place in our conversation for reasoning from the Scriptures?
I do hope there is.
Tim
Thx. Galatians brought this to mind:
Had a thought Tim ( dangerous, I know..)
I normally eschew hypotheticals, but here I go nonetheless.
I’m Opc, you’re PCA. We are brothers in NAPARC. What if when we turn on today’s morning news the Pope announces he is abandoning the last 500+ years of his church’s development, and instead is adopting the constitution of the OPC henceforth for his church. What I mean,is what if the RCC became the OPCon order from the pope.
Well, you know what I would do? I wouldn’t leave the OPC for this new reconstituted RCC.
Much to Kenneth’s chagrin, we like where God placed us eclessiastically, for the most part. There would be no reason, in other words, for us to transfer our membership to the church led by Bergoglio.
My two cents, is all.
Peace, Cath readers. Enjoy your “lent.” I’ll eat and drink merrily in your memory 😉
Thanks, Andrew,
Your hypothetical brings out the issue of church unity: one of the fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and Christianity is that for Roman Catholicism, the unity of the Church is organizational. For Christians, the unity of the Church is spiritual. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8).
When Elijah thought he was the only one left, the Lord responded, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18). Paul used this verse to show that “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:5).
One mistake that we can make, and many have, is to assume that unity can only be expressed organizationally, and therefore the unity of the church an only be found in Rome. Some have called “that they may be one” Jesus’ unanswered prayer. I have my reasons for disagreeing. I believe it has been answered, and answered powerfully—and Rome is not that answer.
Your Elijah point brought this to mind:
Thank you for your labor, Timothy. Your blog encourages me.
Peace.
Hello,
I request permission to submit a comment on your statement of, “one of the fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and Christianity is that for Roman Catholicism, the unity of the Church is organizational. For Christians, the unity of the Church is spiritual. “
I think the term we papist like is “visible”.
Think about it; How would St. Paul have disfellowshipped (a.k.a. excommunicated ) the adulterous son in law from a spiritual/invisible church?
Jim,
I understand your point, but to be clear, I did not say the church is not organizational. There is a definite organization and a hierarchy so that everything “may be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). We are given instructions in the Scripture about how to deal with error, including excommunication from the body. An organization is required for this to happen. So I grant your point that the organization of the church is organizational. But this is tautology.
What I said is that its unity is spiritual, and that is not the same as saying its organization is spiritual and therefore invisible. Your identification of the church organization with its unity illustrates my point.
Thank you,
Tim
Tim,
As you know we don’t argue from scripture alone and the reception of Mary as the second Ark of the covenant is something we derive primarily from Sacred Tradition. Even if I granted that such exegetes read to much into those texts that’s still quite different than decoding a whole chapter of an epistle so that it teaches the opposite of what it actually says. Whats worse is that there is bit one example you gave from ezekial that contradicts Roman Catholic teaching on 1. meritorious works through the spirit 2. Losing salvation through mortal sin and 3 God justifying the ungodly man at the end of his life. All of the examples you gave can be read as a perfect parallel to our understanding of salvation. In other words Tim, If our reading is more straight forward and jives just as well with Ezekiel I don’t see why anyone would prefer your “decoded to mean the opposite” interpretation.
Gonna jump in, Kenneth, simply to spout off about my own experience (which is not normative, I know).
I believe the tradition I was raised in, independent fundamentalist baptist, too be overly didactic and a ultimately deriving from a misunderstanding of what our fathers in the Reformation sought to do. The Anabaptists were radical reformers. The magisterial reformers, not so.
I’m indebted to the work of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Their writings brought me out of a bad church setting into a healthy one, as a conservative Presbyterian.
I for one am home in my church, and would not be in Rome. Primarily, Trent is the reason. Trent is your sacred tradition trumping the Gospel, IMHO, and for me, that just wont do.
Sola Scriptura was vital in the life of the church to heal our church from the many abuses so evident in the 16th century, when the Reformation started.
But I believe you can be saved apart from SS. You on the other hand opine on things I think you ought not. For example, you told me at OL that Martin Luther as excommunicated is most likely currently in Hell, on that basis of excommunication.
Round and round we go. Kenneth, knowing member what would you have me or any Reformed Xtian do in light of our deep divide between traditions represented?
Grace and peace.
*
membermeDont feel obligated to answer, Kenneth, as I did find this answer a satisfactory one, and one I’ll probably stick to.
Peace.
Thank you, Kenneth.
Indeed, had I read these Scriptures through a Roman Catholic lens, I would see them as you now see them. One thing I appreciate very much about Jason Stellman is that he acknowledges that he did not just take off his “Protestant lenses” and start reading the Scriptures with disinterested objectivity. No, rather, he started reading the Scriptures through “Roman Catholic lenses.”
That said, I might offer three objections to your summary.
1) Because Paul himself points us to Ezekiel (Romans 2:24—you will find that this particular construct is found verbatim in only four verses of Scripture: Ezekiel 36:20,21,22 and 23), I find it rather helpful to examine Ezekiel and find what Ezekiel had to say. Paul was, after all, writing to Gentiles, knowing full well that informed Jews would be listening in. Reading Paul’s own source material is important, lest we read Romans through Gentile lenses alone. It was meant to be read through Jewish eyes. Surely we can agree that Ezekiel informs Romans here? When we run to Ezekiel to find that Ezekiel’s offer was expressed in terms of new heart vs. old heart, surely Paul’s description of the Pharisees’ hard hearts and the Gentiles’ circumcised hearts is not merely incidental. And what, precisely, made the Jews so mad in Ezekiel 18 and 33? That is worth finding out, don’t you agree?
2) When you say I “decode” Romans “so that it teaches the opposite of what it actually says,” I think you mean to say, “so that it says the opposite of what Roman Catholicism takes it to mean.” The reason I recast your argument in this way is that we must be careful not to dismiss what the Scriptures are telling us by reading them through a polarized lens that prevents us from hearing the message. As I noted elsewhere, the Jews objected to Jesus’ and Paul’s “decoding” of the Old Testament, for their reading of it was diametrically opposed to that of the Pharisees. You would acknowledge, would you not, that “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days” (John 2:19) requires some, as you say, “decoding”? Or are you going to take a “more straight forward” reading of it, and testify at the trial that Jesus claimed He could build in three days what it took forty years to construct? (Matthew 26:61). Surely, a better lens would help? Those who testified at the trial against Jesus would accuse you of the offense you lay at my feet: decoding His words to mean the opposite of what they plainly say.
3) I have not decoded “a whole chapter of an epistle so that it teaches the opposite of what it actually says.” I have let Paul interpret it for me. As I noted in my original post on Romans 2:13, I must take Romans 2 together with Romans 3. When Paul says “the doers of the law will be justified” (Romans 2:13) and then in the next chapter says the doers of the law will not be justified by the works of the law (Romans 3:20), I can conclude nothing else but this: doing the law is the fruit of rebirth, but it is not the ground of our justification. This not decoding. It is exegesis.
That other men interpret it differently, I do not deny. Ultimately we are talking about lenses and who has the right prescription.
Thanks so much for your comment.
Tim
Hi Kenneth, I am a friend, not a foe. I don’t want to divert the conversation away from the topic but maybe you should come over to Tim’s blog on Mary where we can explore the Ark of the Covenant more. I think we Catholics win smack down on this title of Mary leaping off the pages of Luke and John.
We need not appeal to Tradition on this one but can stand toe to toe on Sola Scriptura with our Protestant friends on this one and win without breaking a sweat. Hope to see on ” Is God in Debt to Mary?”
Dear Tim,
You write,
Surely we can agree that Ezekiel informs Romans here? When we run to Ezekiel to find that Ezekiel’s offer was expressed in terms of new heart vs. old heart, surely Paul’s description of the Pharisees’ hard hearts and the Gentiles’ circumcised hearts is not merely incidental. And what, precisely, made the Jews so mad in Ezekiel 18 and 33? That is worth finding out, don’t you agree?
I agree that Ezekiel can help to inform the chapter. I also agree that works considered meritorious at the final judgement will have to be done with a new(circumsized) heart and not one of the flesh. How the Jets felt in 18 and 33 is not as important to me as what Ezekiel was teaching and in Ezekiel I see a wonderful foreshadowing of RC theology that is fulfilled in the new testament.
When you say I “decode” Romans “so that it teaches the opposite of what it actually says,” I think you mean to say, “so that it says the opposite of what Roman Catholicism takes it to mean.” The reason I recast your argument in this way is that we must be careful not to dismiss what the Scriptures are telling us by reading them through a polarized lens that prevents us from hearing the message. As I noted elsewhere, the Jews objected to Jesus’ and Paul’s “decoding” of the Old Testament, for their reading of it was diametrically opposed to that of the Pharisees. You would acknowledge, would you not, that “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days” (John 2:19) requires some, as you say, “decoding”? Or are you going to take a “more straight forward” reading of it, and testify at the trial that Jesus claimed He could build in three days what it took forty years to construct? (Matthew 26:61). Surely, a better lens would help? Those who testified at the trial against Jesus would accuse you of the offense you lay at my feet: decoding His words to mean the opposite of what they plainly say.
What I mean to say is that you have interpreted the chapter in a way that the conclusion is the exact opposite of what the text would seem to imply by a plain reading. Esteemed reformed theologian Michael Horton interprets this chapter as “setting up the impossible ” or letting the jews know how badly they will need a Savior through faith alone which will be supposedly offered in later chapters . This places the chapter in a different light than one would expect but at least it doesn’t interpret it in a way that teaches the exact opposite of what a plain reading would suggest. Perspecuity is thrown out the window if your suggested interpretation is accepted as plausible.
You are right to say that Jesus teaching was diametrically opposed to what the jews were expecting in many instances but He was also unfolding special revelation that was backed by numerous miracles! Quite different from our situation on this blog where the gospel has been once and for all delivered.
3. You claim to have let Paul interpret the chapter for you but then everyone makes the same claim! The reason why you can not easily reconcile Romans 2s works and the works of law discussed later is because your Protestant lenses won’t allow you to distinguish between meritorious works in the spirit and works done in the flesh under a system of debt. One the distinction is made the bibles teachings on faith and works are perfectly reconciled
I sense more error here , Kenny.
Thanks, Andrew,
My point about Ezekiel 18 & 33 is that the Jews “felt” jealous, which makes it an important reference from Paul when he says evoking jealousy is his objective in the epistle.
I understand Horton, and a great many others, interpret Romans 2:13 as “setting up the impossible.” However, I do not agree with Horton. It is my understanding that you do not agree with him either.
You wrote that Jesus “was also unfolding special revelation that was backed by numerous miracles!” Indeed. He could only say what the Father told him to say (John 12:49). When He said, “And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive” (Matthew 13:14), we can safely assume that He was applying the old text in a way that the Jews would not have applied it.
And when He said, “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6), He was applying the old text in a way they were not expecting.
When He read from Isaiah in the synagogue (Luke 4:17), He applied the text in a way they were not expecting.
The point is that Jesus built His message on what had already been revealed, and was consistent with it. At Romans 2:13, Paul is building his message on what he heard from Jesus, and what he heard from Jesus was that harlots, tax collectors, samaritans and gentiles “did the will of his father” and were entering in, and the Jews had not and were not. He was “grieved for the hardness of their hearts” (Mark 3:5), but spoke of those who received the Word as if their hearts were new again, and the Word of God was hidden in it (Mark 4, Luke 8). When Ezekiel tells the Jews to repent of their sins and get a new heart and a new spirit (18), and that God will replace their hearts of stone with a heart of flesh and write His word on it and place His Spirit within them and cause them to walk in His statutes (36)… these are all relevant to Romans 2, especially because Paul points us to Ezekiel as he is writing (Romans 2:24). In that light, is it so hard to see “despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” in the context of Gentiles repenting, and Paul imploring the Jews to do the same?
This verse would seem to apply: “Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matthew 13:52).
You observed, “The reason why you can not easily reconcile Romans 2s works and the works of law discussed later is because your Protestant lenses won’t allow you to distinguish between meritorious works in the spirit and works done in the flesh under a system of debt. ”
To the contrary, it is easily reconciled, especially in light of Jesus’ teachings. The harlots and tax collectors are “doing the law,” and therefore are the justified believers Paul has in mind in Romans 2:13. But they are justified by faith, apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28).
Thanks for your comments,
Tim
We’re talking ancient history, Ken. No jets back then.
There were Jews tho..
Ken,
Do you believe all protestants believe in legal fiction?
Timothy,
Here is a comment I found interesting from DG Hart:
Note that interlocutor Kenneth Winnsman and I have some history. I will leave you all, now, unless you have questions. Just know, Kenneth has spent months arguing with us at Oldlife. I have noticed improvement over the time as he discussed with us. But at times, he goes on the attack in a way that reveals he is still got some serious learning still left to do.
Peace.
Andrew,
If you would just read the link that you posted about me accusing the reformed of believing in a “legal fiction” it was just a joke…. Everyone understood that it was a joke except for you… I guess you still didn’t get the memo? I don’t think I understand why you are following me around like a creeper bringing up old convos on a different blog…. Do you have anything nice to contribute to the conversation besides a wild change of topic? I’ve already seen the insulting, rude and crass side of reformed protestants over at OL… I was hoping to get to see a new perspective from Tim and it’s been very enjoyable thus far.
Kenneth, I thought you spend time in reformed blogs seeking converts. I can dig those up.
So you are not here seeking to convert Timothy and me?
I had concluded your reason here and at OL was to convert Timothy and DG. Your motive and manner (hanging out with reformed, attacking us, and trying to convert us) made you the aggressor, from what I could see.
If I’m creeping you out, then sure, I’m gone. This thread is yours Kenneth. Have a nice day, and sorry.
Hi Andrew, I was scrolling around looking for something else and stumbled upon your exchange with Kenneth.
Realistically, we probably aren’t going to convert anyone, at least not those confirmed in their positions. But remember, for every one person who writes in, there are several others who don’t but are exploring both sides.
Of course Kenneth would like to make a convert out of you and win Tim back to the fold. Don’t you want to make converts too? If you think your position is the right one, why wouldn’t you want to share it?
Ciao for now
For the record, at OL, I understood Bryan defending himself against DG’s blog words. And I understood you and James Young defending your belief system.
But you started out out there, swinging away at refored people. It was shocking to see your words against us. Especially as one who touts your own history as appreciating your former personal history as Lutheran.
If you didn’t notice, I addressed Timothy before I started addressing you. Like at OL, you seem to not want to deal with what I say, but attack me and call me creepy.
This sure does seem sad, and doesn’t bode well for prospects of Cath/Prot dialogue in online forums where you are involved.
Thats how I see it. Peace, Kenneth.
How would you like me making jokes in catholic blogs against Mariology?
Check for Logs, friend. They do crop up in one’s eye, every now and again. That’s all, Ken.
Enjoy your convo here. See you around OL.
Andrew,
You aren’t on topic and haven’t even once attempted to discuss the topic that our host has supplied. I’m all for dialog… But you are not making an attempt at dialog. You are following me all around linking to old conversations and attempting to paint me in an unfavorable light. Completely randomly I might add. Your also sending me personal emails that are equally creepy. Like you can’t see me but I’m always watching creepiness. I would love to talk with you about the faith on any blog on any topic that is presented. It is my opinion that you are currently disrupting dialog and not contributing to it.
Kenneth, why are you here?
That’s all I want to know, because you have made clear other places you are out to convert Reformed Xtians to your religion. I wonder why, is all
As for personal correspondence on email on blog, we are through. Goodbye, Kenneth.
And also for the record I have not just “shown up” to reformed blogs just to attack people like a troll (although that is what you have done here). Daryl has repeatedly said they he wants me at Old Life while the rest of you took bets on how long I could stomach the abuse and stick around. Obviously I think RC claims are true and because I love others enjoy sharing that truth with them in the hope of spreading the cause. Tim has already been there and do everything that and swam the Tiber in the opposite direction…. Hence, a great opportunity to dialog.
Tim has already been there and done that*******
Is what the above should read
Timothy, I was saved in John MacArthur’s church out of a awful sinful lifestyle as a professional musician over 30 years ago. One thing about John is He is all about fighting false doctrine which many aren’t willing to do today. Something you said in another post I think is the issue. Protestants are taught to acquiesce with Rome. They aren’t aloud to fight this giant error. Spurgeon had a different take. He said we should pray against it every day that God would throw their doctrines into the sea. He said we can have no peace with Rome and they can have no peace with us. We shall love their people and hate their doctrines. But people care more about the relationship than they do the truth to day. I am thankful for men like you. It is clear that Rome cannot resist the urge to smuggle their character into God’s work go grace. And we should fight this error with all we have. God Bless.
Thanks, Kevin,
Great to hear from you.
Warm regards
Tim
Timothy, This is one of the best articles i have ever read on Romans 2, and your welcome. I hope you dedicate your life to seeing the people in Rome saved. Because Luther’s words echo in my mind everyday in hid small called articles. The Pope and his religion won’t permit men to be saved. We have to snatch them out of the fire. God Bless.
Yes, indeed. Thanks, Kevin,
Tim
Kevin, You mention a post or two above this one how much you admire John MacArthur. Here you mention how Luther’s words echo to you.
I think you may enjoy MacArthur’s video on Martin Luther and Pedobaptism. Mac ‘s disdain for Luther is obvious.
Have a great day
Jim, Hardly Jim, MacArthur is quite fond of Luther although he disagrees with infant baptism.
Hi Jim, Just so there is no mistake that Mary had other chidden. I am going to provide direct verses of scripture that clearly locates Mary and her children. As you know the word for children can not be kinsmen or nephew or anything other than child. The Catholic Catechism’s teaching on this is corrupt. Mat.13:56, 12:16, Mark 6:3, 3:31, Luke 8:19, John 2:12, 7:3, Gal.1:18, 1 Cor 9:4. Overwhelming evidence that Joseph and Mary had quite a quiver. I hope you will mediate on these scriptures and the blinders be taken off so you can see the clear biblical truth. If you need more let me know. Kevin
Kevin, Mary did NOT have other children.
Kevin, You are obsessed with this. Why? Is it a salvation issue? You accord the title “Christian” to Arminians. They are polar opposites Calvinists. Do you have an obsession with them?
Kevin, thanks but no thanks for the list of scriptures. Elsewhere I have buried you in scripture on this. So we see the issue is not scripture but whose interpretation of scripture is right on the money.
I know Mary was a perpetual Virgin because my mom, the nuns and my friends told me so when I was a kid. They wouldn’t lie to me.
How do they know? Well, Kevin, because the Church says so.
The Church cannot, will not, shall not make a mistake on this.
How can I be so sure? Because Jesus said so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus built His Church, promised to be with it, and set up Peter and his successors as visible and infallible head of His visible and infallible Church, His Body, His Kingdom, His Bride.
You say Mary had other children. Are you the visible and infallible head of the Church. No?
You say the Bible says she did. The Pope says the Bible says she didn’t.
You say the Church, ergo Jesus has failed in keeping the Church saved.
Thank you but I don’t know you. I will stick with what the nuns taught me.
Have a great day and check the other thread where I explain ( again ) just who Jesus’ kinsmen were.
PS Want to argue from the Papacy this issue? I do.
Again, scripture, the infallible word of God says opposite. Without scripture Jim, you are a clanging symbol, Pure imagination.
The bible said she had many children. I’ll stake my bet on scripture rather than the traditions of man. They change and are fallible. For instance Augustine didn’t believe i transubstantiation, in fact the word wasn’t invented until after 1000, yet poof Hocus Pocus, you worship the Jesus wafer. Come with me, and you’ll see a land of pure imagination.
Tim, I am going to have to ask you to wear your referee hat and discipline Kevin. He is about to be dumped from Jason’s blog for his use of Hocus Pocus.
If you opt not to, may I unleash on the fellow? Or do you only require Catholics to play by the rules on this blog?
Tim, Should you opt to allow Kevin to get away with what you know is a major anti-Catholic slur, I can only take it as an example of the Dr. Frankenstein/Igor business I mentioned above.
Hunchback and stupid Igor does the slurs and you get to have your cake and eat it too. You are the Christian, the father of four, the Christian husband who has had a conversion experience with the nice job. You would never say Hocus Pocus, or make lewd remarks about Joseph. But maybe you would like to?
That is where the simpleton oaf comes in handy. You unleash him to do your dirty work and then stand back and say, “Now boys, break it up”, no rough housing in the house.”
Since Kevin said it, knowing from Jason’s blog how offensive it is, in front of all the “lurkers”, it is only fair that you wash his mouth out with soap in front of them too.
Maybe you can e-mail him and tell him he is embarrassing you and to tone it down. Then wink at him and tell him you like what he said.
Or you can do the right thing and tell him, in front of the lurkers, that as an ex-Catholic, you wouldn’t want your Catholic family members subjected to such verbal abuse. Tell him to stick to dueling with scripture. ( Actually, Kevin’s slurs reveal that the duel has been lost using scripture verses and all he has left is to hurl dung. He is desperate, impotent and beaten, huh? )
Everyone is watching Tim. Your call.
Jim,
I do understand what you are saying. However, I am familiar enough with the politics of victimization to know it when I see it. “Hocus Pocus” is shorthand for “we don’t believe that the priest’s words of consecration accomplish anything more than those of a magician when he performs a trick, and therefore the god you worship is a crust of bread, and nothing more.” I would no sooner prohibit the former than stop saying the latter, and yet to a Roman Catholic, they are equally offensive because they mean the same thing. Am I to make a rule here against the criticism of the false god of Rome’s sacrament? I might as well shut down the blog because any criticism of Rome’s doctrines may be offensive to Roman Catholics. What offends you more— that Kevin said “hocus pocus,” or that I believe that Rome’s popes communicate with devils and teach the doctrines of demons to the flock, and that even the approved visions of Mary are from hell?
As Roman Catholics have everywhere reminded me, “Hocus Pocus” is “a direct attack against the real presence of our Lord in the most blessed sacrament.” In other words, it is a direct attack against what Protestants consider to be an idol. Are Protestants to stop preaching against the idol of Rome? Must I also correct Elijah for mocking the god of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27?
I don’t know Kevin, and I have not communicated with him offline, but I will never require Protestants on this blog to show the slightest reverence to Rome’s deadly wafer. I will also not prohibit you from arguing in favor of the sacrifice of the Mass, as deeply and eternally offensive as it is to my Lord and Savior. And I will not prohibit you from making reference to Luther’s “epistle of straw” statement—which, as you know, is merely shorthand criticism of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which I find precious and indispensable. I disagree with the shorthand, and what it is intended to convey, but I will not prohibit you from using it. But it is best for us to do so without unverifiable personal characterizations and ad hominem attacks.
You are always welcome here, Jim. Thanks for your thoughts.
Tim
Tim, thank you dear brother. I mean nothing but love to all men especially Catholics. But I will never support the reverence given a piece of bread in the place of our Savior. Thanks brother, sometimes I fell alone in the fight. Its men like you who I pray have the heart and fervor of the Spurgeon’s Knox’s, Sproul’s, Horton.s , MacArthur’s, Kauffman’s who won’t throw 440 years of martyrdom and history away for modern opinion. God Bless
Tim, I agree it is an affront to the Lord’s true presence in the Sacrament. Well said. I have more hope today. A strong statement Tim. Don’t stop. Always in love I know.
Tim,
I have done my witness here and peace to all readers.
I would like you to know that I will rejoice greatly when you witness the “Lord’s true presence in the Sacrament” in
“Rome’s deadly wafer”. And I won’t even for a minute feel anything but true praise, I promise.
Prayers always,
Debbie
Thank you, Debbie. You are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim, you put it so well, “Rome’s deadly wafer” They march it around in the street thru history and in many Latin countries. I have always been very honest with my Catholic friends, to do this or worship Mary I believe will result in the loss of their soul, along with trusting one’s works in their gospel. Fortunately Tim I understand that up to 70 % of Roman Catholics don’t know it is an abominable sacrifice and about transubstantiation.
Dr.Tim, I didn’t think anyone who would title a book, “Graven Bread” would reign in their Igor. I just wanted the “lurkers” to see you for what you are .
As for Luther and the Epistle of Straw, don’t forget that in his Table talks he said Christ committed adultery three times; with Mary Magdalene, with the woman at the well, and with the woman taken in adultery. His defenders were quick to excuse Luther as he was probably just drunk when he said it so we can excuse him, huh?.
I am also partial to the account of the great inventor of Justification by faith Alone giving Philip of Hesse permission to have two wives. ” Just don’t tell anyone”, he said to the bigamist prince. When it was found out, Luther tried to lie his way out of it.
Luther also commissioned Lucas Cranach’s scatological art. Cranach used his drawing skills and Luther supplied the subject matter. Click on Images,Lucas Cranach too see all the scenes involving,..well,.. poop. Headshrinkers today can do a pretty accurate work up on the heresiarch from this art. Couple this with the fact that he came to his conclusions on theology while in the “cloaca”, we know he was obsessed with the toilet, a sign of an infantile mind.
I won’t bother mentioning his hallucinations of the devil, scrupulosity, hatred for Jews and Anabaptists like Kevin, fear of lightning, persecution of “witches”, beer guzzling, encouraging the princes to “slay and stab” the peasants without mercy when they rebelled against their oppressors, etc. etc. as Luther was justified by faith, not works. Ha!
This kind of explains why the mad monk was so happy with the idea of an alien righteousness seeing that that he had none of his own to boast of. Ha!
PS Dear Lurkers, go to some Lutheran websites to see if I am fibbing about Tim and Kevin’s spiritual father. Tim and Kev can overlook all of Luther’s peccadilloes except for believing in the Real Presence, Baptism of babies and Mary’s Virginity.
Ha! Ya’ gotta love it!
Igor/Kevin,
You wrote,”Tim, you put it so well, “Rome’s deadly wafer” They march it around in the street thru history and in many Latin countries. I have always been very honest with my Catholic friends, …”
Amazing! Your Catholic “friends”? I remember Hank Hanegraaf, the Bible answer dude, who was a decent Protestant man although wrong on Catholicism say often, ” You have to build a bridge before you can drive heavy equipment over it”.
What that means is that you shouldn’t unnecessarily offend the people you are trying to dialogue with. You start off spitting in your Catholic “friends” faces with your caustic remarks.
But then, you are more to be pitied than censured.
Master Tim approves, Igor. He will throw you a bone under the table for your faithful boot licking service.
Jim, you can’t forgive Luther, but you forgive JPII when he committed the whole church into the hands of Mary when he died. Im sure that bothered you, right, because it wounds the Lord. Christ is the head of the church, so I’m sure you can’t forgive JP either, right?
Jim, Im sure it bothered you when one of your many corrupt popes has the night of the chestnuts, when prostitutes crawled around the floor nude searching for chestnuts. There has been more sin committed by Roman Priests that it prompted Spurgeon to say ” i would rather a man looked at me in the street and called me the devil than a Priest.
Jim, First of all I have Calvin’s view of the Supper, if my Reformed brothers baptize I’m ok with that because it isn’t ex opere operato. And yes I believe in the Mary revealed in the bible, and not the tale of one city.
Jim, I forgot infants in my sentence. If my Reformed brothers baptize infants I’m ok with that because isn’t ex opere operato.
Igor, Where did you learn a big word like that? Have you been peeking in the doctor’s books?
Kevin, You just don’t get it do you?
Of course it bothers me when a Pope lives a life not consistent with his doctrine. Paul called Peter a hypocrite for preaching that gentiles were equal to Jewish converts but his ( Peter’s ) practice of not eating with them was inconsistent.
Popes have basically said, ” Do as I preach but not as I do”.
Luther is totally different. His behavior and his doctrine were quite in harmony. He said Christ committed sins of the flesh in his doctrine and he allowed it in practice. Luther was not a hypocrite. He said good works were meaningless and he didn’t do any.
He said sin is nothing to worry about and he didn’t worry about it.
Many Catholic clergymen have broken their vows of celibacy behind closed doors. Luther broke his in broad daylight for all to see.
When a Catholic priest, Bishop or Pope says it is important to strive for holiness but doesn’t bother doing so, it is a scandal.
Luther said striving for holiness is just works righteousness anyway, so don’t sweat it.
You are just too simple to understand this. We dueled about this for days on Jason’s blog. It’s okay though because the lurkers understand. I am writing for them. I am just using you as does Tim.
Tim, You wrote, ” I will never require Protestants on this blog to show the slightest reverence to Rome’…”
Tim, you disappoint the lurkers and me.
You know, I have no respect for the Islamic religion that is practiced in the mosque close to where my wife works.
But I do respect the sincere men who, through no fault of their own, don’t know Christ and are doing their best to obey God.
I would not walk up to a muslim child or old person and insult the image of God that he or she has been created in.
I would be such a coward to say anything through the safety of a computer that I wouldn’t say in front of the hundreds of burly men going in that mosque on a Friday evening.
My religion, the true one, says I am not to BOAST in being graced with having a Catholic upbringing while others have not been so fortunate.
My religion says that Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Buddhists, and the Hindoos that I meet here in Portugal were, just as I, taught by their mothers and fathers their prayers.
My religion, again the true one, forbids me from calling Jews “kikes” or Islamic women in habibs “terrorists” or the Buddhist guy from China in my wife’s orchestra a “gook”.
Tim, your discounting my request for decency and fairness as the “politics of victimization” is shameful.
I wish I could meet your parents. The ones who raised you to have such reverence for the Catholic Faith.
Jim, You can say what you want about Luther, but please don’t lie. To say Luther said works are meaningless is lying Jim, the Reformers took the same position on works as Paul, they are the fruit of true saving faith an are never meritorious in salvation. Rome has made initial justification free and then adds installments based on the life lived. This cunning scheme is in direct violation of Paul’s teaching. Works and grace are opposed in justification for Paul. ” For if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace” All works are excluded even grace enabled works. Any individual who is trusting their works in any way to get them to heaven aren’t going. And that means Roman Catholicism is under the anathema of Galatians. There are Catholics ignorant of the Roman system who are trusting in Christ alone who are saved, but those of full knowledge of that system who believe you must do the sacraments of the church to be saved are not saved.
Debbie, I clicked around the talk I told you about on Fatima.
http://tobinternationalsymposia.com/?p=361
Tim, don’t buy his mental manipulation. Out of the abundance the heart speaks. He has called me every name in the book on Jason’s blog. He loves to grandstand.
Tim, Spurgeon said ” As the Gospel is the masterpiece of God, so Popery is the masterpiece of Satan.”
Isn’t a spurgeon is a big ugly fish they have in Oregon. A bottom eater scouring for garbage. Stay on topic Kevin.
Tim, I’m so glad you have gone on Jason’s website. I don’t mean to be pompous in any way. But you are like playing with kids over there. Your arguments have been superb calling out Jason’s premise for his new book. Outstanding work. Tim, i’m praying for your ministry. I’m going to challenge to write a book geared toward Roman Catholics. Each chapter should be a biblical refutation of at least say 8-12 major doctrines. Sort of what you do hear. Justification, Mary, Sola Scriptura, Papacy, Jewish jealousy etc. Tim, I have been praying for you and I believe your the guy. Please forgive me for being so forward. Eric W has encouraged me with Mathew 11:12. Its like taking a beachhead. We have to go after this error with everything we have. To much shoulder rubbing going on between Reformed and Rome. IMHO. God bless your friend and brother Kevin