Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

[The Biblicist]

Rome's Contradictions

Rome clearly states that the Roman Catholic Church is the "mother" of all who believe:

168...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life.'

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother. 'We beleive the Church as the mother of our new birth...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition.

However, when they define faith they use Abraham as the MODEL provided by Scriptures

144 To obey (from the Ltin ob-audire, to 'hear or listen to') in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture..." (Ibid).


and yet NO CATHOLIC CHURCH existed when Abraham was justified by faith. No Mosaic law existed.

Yet it is clear that Abraham is the example set forth for ALL BELEIVERS in ALL AGES. If no church was necessary for faith with Abraham then no church is necessary today. Just as Abraham was justified BEFORE he received any sign or seal of justification so also are we justified by faith BEFORE receiving any sign or seal of justification (Rom. 4:11).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I've highlighted above a phrase that we will continue to disagree on.....what you are saying is you and I have a part in our actual salvation, and I argue that our salvation is by grace alone....a work of Christ, not man.....you believe our salvation depends upon living out that faith--that, TS, is a definition of works salvation, which is what I've always believed the RCC teaches, but leads me back to my OP in my discussion with you--you said you have had a true born again experience--my question is, why would you want to go back to a system which teaches works salvation? .....

Still I disagree that its works salvation as the works don't get me saved. Jesus does that. The closest way as I can explain it to you is saying this depending on your eschatology. Personally, I'm Amillenialist. At the consumation of all things. When we recieve crowns I ask you how do we get those crowns? They don't save us but they are a part of our salvation the reward aspect.

Amen! Now this is going to sound silly maybe, but why wouldn't you want to go to a Church where this Gospel is preached every week?

I do. I know there are Liberal Catholic Clergy that only have a social sermon of the dead kind but not all Catholics are that way. Most Catholic lay people at this point are daydreaming anyway.

TS I'm glad you have been born again, and have had this experience,

thank you and I rejoice that my family loves the Lord and are growing in his grace. I look forward to heaven.

but my experience with the people [the 9 families in my Church, plus family members] who came out of the RCC is they never heard the Gospel preached

I really can't speak for them except to say they are what faith filled Catholics call Cultural Catholics. Did they ever ask or try to learn? I don't know. Did they ever read the catachism?

Sorry I had to interject here--I cannot stand the NIV, but thats my opinion! --there are much better study Bibles out there

that was then now I like the NRSV and the ESV. But I have these bibles on my book shelf which I constantly referrence. NIV, NRSV, ESV, NAB, KJV, NKJV, Douey-Rheims, Septuigent, Textual Critic of the NT by Metzger.

Your testimony is much like mine when I was saved--I couldn't get enough of Church, the Bible, fellowship, etc.....I would ask questions at Wed night Bible study that I know irritated my preacher [not to irritate him, I just had questions that didn't really have answers, like, why didn't Peter James and John write about the transfiguration--I remember the puzzled look that night and I decided not to do that again![--what goes around comes around as now I'm pastoring and getting those kinds of questions, but hey, I'm ready now! ] You are right, its sad there are so many schisms within Christianity, and this is why I will sort of agree with the RCC [they are big on their rendition of church history]--people need to study the Bible AND Church history--from an actual historic perspective--it changed my life listening to a 13 hr study, which I would be glad to get to you if you would want to hear it.....It goes through everything from the beginning till the Charismatic movement to what we have today [emerging church movement]....The important thing is for a person to continue to study to show themselves approved and to find a TRUE Bible believing Church!

However studing Christian history there are some natural questions. I wondered if you asked them.

Well you are right, it isn't faith;

Yes. We have this in all denominations. And their numbers are growing!!!!!

however, is more often the norm with RCC families [my experience];

I'm not supprised.

again, I KNOW there are saved people in the RCC such as yourself--I also know there are unsaved people in every denomination--the part I have to wrestle with, is which Church should I affiliate with? Again, you embrace sanctification and the process--I wish I had a Church full of people like that! But Biblical sanctification [or esp salvation] is not some process affiliated with a Church or its systems, it is an inner work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a yielded believer.....Good works are an evidence of faith

Yes but what do you call a christian who isn't doing good works or indeed becoming sanctified

?.....I told you earlier I was in a Baptist Church with a Jack Hyles clone pastor who took us out "soul winning"--we asked people questions which any reprobate would agree to, and then asked them to pray and then the preacher would tell them they had been forgiven of all their sins past, present and future and that they could never lose their "salvation" etc etc :tonofbricks:.....We literally went into bars and told people that.....when we left, no person EVER actually came to Church--and I assume we left them the impression they were "saved" and never had to ever lift a finger of concern about their salvation ever again!--this is every bit as dangerous as any system of religion as far as I'm concerned--Jesus said you must be born again....the Scripture says if any man be in Christ he is a NEW creation! [Not because of what I do, but because of what Christ has done]......But TS don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.....there are Bible believing Churches out there.....true born again believers need to find one

I believe the Catholic Church to be a bible believing church.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is interesting that individual Catholics have the priviledge of disagreeing with official dogma of the church and yet claim to be presenting the authentic position of the church on salvation.

The Apostle Paul was dealing specifically with the doctrine of justification (not sanctification) by faith in contrast to the doctrine of justification by faith plus works (sanctification) when he classified that form of doctrine as "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9).

The Judiazers did not deny faith in Christ and that is why Paul could call what they believed a "gospel." Instead they simply repudiated the idea that faith in Christ was sufficient to COMPLETLEY justify a man before God but rather that COMPLETION must include works AFTER beleiving in Christ:

Gal. 3: 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

1. They had begun by "the HEARING of faith"
2. They now think they must be completed (perfected) by the "WORKS of the law"

Some attempt to avoid this pointedly condemnation by Paul by redefining "hearing" and "works."

However, "hearing" is something YOU RECEIVE but "works" are something YOU DO. Remember, this concerns the gospel and the gospel is something your HEAR according to what is PREACHED to you:

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.

Rome preaches a gospel that defines "grace" to be a mixture of faith and works." Rome repudiates the truth that faith WITHOUT WORKS justifies "THE UNGODLY"!

Instead they demand that there is no justification for THE UNGODLY but rather God only justifies THE GODLY and so justificaiton is the PROCESS whereby the UNGODLY becomes GODLY through good works which form works form the bais in judgement to justify them before God.

Hence, by redefining grace to include works and redefining justification to include sanctification they can say salvation cannot be merited but is based solely upon the provision of Jesus Christ as it is administerd by grace through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments.

Paul calls this very Catholic doctrine "another gospel" and therefore Rome is not a gospel church or a Bible church but an "accursed" church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Quoting pieces of the Catachism out of context isn't the same as knowing Dogma. Already you've misapplied what you've quoted. But then again its never good arguing with you Dr...er...Biblicist. You have to understand that Catholic Doctrine builds upon foundational things which of course you totally disregard. So the bottom line is you've miss applied your quotations. And when you haven't you're not even totally sure what it is you are reading.

 

[The Biblicist]

Faith precedes baptism

Rom. 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

In contrast, Rome teaches that both faith and regeneration are inseperable from baptism, not merely inseparable but both are obtained IN baptism.

The CCC is very carefully worded on this point. The admit that a candidate for baptism can be "enlighted" by the preaching of the Word previous to baptism but actual faith along with regeneration is imparted IN baptism and is inseparable with baptism as baptism is the "ENTRY" into the life of faith.


168[COLOR="darkred[I]"]...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life[/I].'[/COLOR] CCC

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

However, the Bible teaches the very opposite. Philip demanded faith in Christ PRIOR TO baptism. Indeed, he demand it as the prerequisite to baptize him. This is also seen clearly in the theif on the cross. Mere faith in Christ "without works" and without sacraments were all that was essential to actually save.

This is what Paul told the Philippian Jailor. The tenses are very instructive here as the Jailor used the present tense continous action verb "what shall I DO to be saved" or KEEP ON DOING?

The response of Paul and Silas was a AORIST TENSE verb completed action direction "beleive" and thou shalt BE SAVED. Again, confirming Philip's demand that fath in Christ, thus faith, preceded baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sacraments do more than SIGNIFY?

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, THE FAITHFUL are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul repudiates Rome's doctrine that signs "actually brings about in each newly person" what is signified!!! Paul says that circumcision was a "sign" and a "seal" of justification by faith. However, Paul says that Abraham already had justification LONG BEFORE he ever submitted to the "sign" of justification by faith - circumcision. Moreover, Paul claimed that justification by faith could be had with those who NEVER submit to any sign.


Jesus also denied that signs actual obtain in a person what they signify:

Luke 5:12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


QUESTION: Did the lepor believe BEFORE or WHEN he was cleansed? "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean...I will: be thou clean"

QUESTION: When was the Lepor actually cleansed of his leporsy? Instantly or when he offered a sacrifice "for thy cleansing"???

QUESTION: Was not the language of redemption used with the ceremony "for they cleansing" "for remission of sins") but did not mean that such cleansing took place in the administration of the ceremony!!!!!

QUESTION: Does not Jesus provide the real reason for ceremonial SYMBOLIC cleansing? "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM."

This is why Baptist teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper are SYMBOLS that do not convey any literal regeneration, cleansing much less faith but are rather visible TESTIMONIES of what God has ALREADY DONE prior to them in the believer.

The whole soteriology hinges upon Rome's doctrine of baptism, if it falls, so does the whole soteriology of Rome.

 

[The Biblicist]

Misapplied layers in a pyramid of error?

Even though one quotes explicit and clear statements of Roman Dogma straight from their own Catechism non-Catholics are consistently accused of jerking statements out of context because they claim their dogma is built layer upon layer of definitions.

However, here is the real truth. What they are complaining about is the fact that you do not accept their layers of REINTERPRETATION of Biblical terms which they use to PROPERLY DEFINE their clear and explicit statements.

In other words, they demand that the non-catholic first ACCEPT their DEFINITIONS of Biblical terms and read then their explicit statements by what THEY MEAN rather than what the Bible means by the same terms.

If you don't define their terms the way they do, then you are accused of JERKING OUT OF CONTEXT, and PERVERTING what they MEAN by their clear and explicit stated dogma!

Hence they want to write the book of definition of Biblical terms and demand you abide by their definitions of biblical terms instead of using the Scriptural definition of those terms to critique their definitions and dogma based upon such definitions.


This is all smoke and mirrors to deceive the foolish into ignoring that the Bible defines its own terms and if Rome departs from Biblical definitons and thus "SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM."

However, the howl because you refuse to define their terms their way to justify their dogma. The old addage is, if you accept the foundations laid by your opponent then you will also have to accept the conclusions of your opponent because the former always leads to the latter. I refuse to accept their definitions. I don't jerk anything out of context but simply shine the light of God's Word on their abuse of definitions of Biblical terms.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me give you an example from your most recent post.

Rome clearly states that the Roman Catholic Church is the "mother" of all who believe:

A couple of founding points that you do not understand regarding how the Catholic Church views herself in accordance with the scriptures.
Founding point one. In order to understand what is being said in these passages one must come from a covenant view of theology. God makes a covenant with Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob (Israel), then Moses, then Joshua, then the loose nation of Israel, then Saul, Then David (upon whose rule much is founded), then Solomon, then he made a covenant with General Jeroboam splitting the Nation of Israel, Israel failed and reaped the consequences and no more of the 12 northern tribes except those who went south to Judah. Soon Judah fell and went into exile. After 70 years of captivity they returned and God renewed the Covenant with Ezra and Israel. Founding point 2) During the Captivity Daniel prophesied about the Kingdom of God which would destroy the comming Roman Empire and bring down foundations left by the Kings such as Nebechanezer, Darius, Alexander the Great and Caesar. The culmination of all previous covenants comes down to Jesus Christ and his establishement of the Kingdom of God baseing it on the King Davidic model. All the previous covenants incomplete and fulfilled in Christ and their natural Growth into the Kingdom of God established by Jesus Christ for it exist in both material and heavenly realm. Foundational points? Founding point 3) God deals with his people in a covenant manner. There are three main covenants Noahide Covenant, Mosaic Covenant (passover), the New Covenant establishing the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ. Founding point 4) The previous covenants only foreshadowed the real covenant God wants with his people thus those covenants are part of the true covenant which is by faith. founding point 5) And the Kingdom of God is the established Church or assembly of those called out. This is how the church views herself in the scheme of things. Its leadership is Jesus Christ. Its covenant meal is the eucharist. its soul and grace is the Holy Spirit. Those that are apart of her in faith are members indeed and those that have no faith are the Chaff which will be blown away. This fundamental view overlays a lot of things that you are tripping over making nonsense statements about. Therefore. The Church is called to evangelize and spread the "faith" given to it by Jesus Christ and the Apostles therefore.

168...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life.'

So the church evangelizes a person and tells them of the Faith. God also works in the heart of the reciever to recieve grace for without the Holy Spirit one cannot accept. But the church is still required to evangelize thus

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother. 'We beleive the Church as the mother of our new birth...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition.

in other words the Church also plays a role in completing Christians in the faith they are given. Catholic theology is a lot more community oriented than protestants.

However, when they define faith they use Abraham as the MODEL provided by Scriptures

Don't you know the scriptures Dr....er....Biblicist? Galatians 3:7

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

144 To obey (from the Ltin ob-audire, to 'hear or listen to') in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture..." (Ibid).

Do you not know the scriptures? John 14:23-24

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

and yet NO CATHOLIC CHURCH existed when Abraham was justified by faith. No Mosaic law existed.

Funny. Read Galatians 3 again. Abraham is the father of all those who have faith. Again do you not know scripture?

 

[The Biblicist]

From Principle to Personal

Another common problem when dealing with Roman Catholics and most cults is when they cannot defeat you by logic and reason they will resort to making attacks on your person.

I have made no attacks on any person. Indeed, I have not even addressed any person in the last several posts. I am afraid there are strong hints that it will not be long before my person will be the object of slanderous attacks.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rom. 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

In contrast, Rome teaches that both faith and regeneration are inseperable from baptism, not merely inseparable but both are obtained IN baptism.

The CCC is very carefully worded on this point. The admit that a candidate for baptism can be "enlighted" by the preaching of the Word previous to baptism but actual faith along with regeneration is imparted IN baptism and is inseparable with baptism as baptism is the "ENTRY" into the life of faith.


168[COLOR="darkred[I]"]...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life[/I].'[/COLOR] CCC

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

However, the Bible teaches the very opposite. Philip demanded faith in Christ PRIOR TO baptism. Indeed, he demand it as the prerequisite to baptize him. This is also seen clearly in the theif on the cross. Mere faith in Christ "without works" and without sacraments were all that was essential to actually save.

This is what Paul told the Philippian Jailor. The tenses are very instructive here as the Jailor used the present tense continous action verb "what shall I DO to be saved" or KEEP ON DOING?

The response of Paul and Silas was a AORIST TENSE verb completed action direction "beleive" and thou shalt BE SAVED. Again, confirming Philip's demand that fath in Christ, thus faith, preceded baptism.

See Dr...er... Biblicist you jump around quoting things you don't understand. and You want me to drop to your level. Suffice it to say you are wrong based based on my post about missapply quotes from the Catachism with out the build up from foundation which you do with scriptures as well. A tit for tat will not yeild results with you because you jump around about other topics and grabs verses and statements you believe support your view as I've given example in post 68. So until you want to honestly discuss these issues I will state you are wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, THE FAITHFUL are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul repudiates Rome's doctrine that signs "actually brings about in each newly person" what is signified!!! Paul says that circumcision was a "sign" and a "seal" of justification by faith. However, Paul says that Abraham already had justification LONG BEFORE he ever submitted to the "sign" of justification by faith - circumcision. Moreover, Paul claimed that justification by faith could be had with those who NEVER submit to any sign.


Jesus also denied that signs actual obtain in a person what they signify:

Luke 5:12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


QUESTION: Did the lepor believe BEFORE or WHEN he was cleansed? "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean...I will: be thou clean"

QUESTION: When was the Lepor actually cleansed of his leporsy? Instantly or when he offered a sacrifice "for thy cleansing"???

QUESTION: Was not the language of redemption used with the ceremony "for they cleansing" "for remission of sins") but did not mean that such cleansing took place in the administration of the ceremony!!!!!

QUESTION: Does not Jesus provide the real reason for ceremonial SYMBOLIC cleansing? "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM."

This is why Baptist teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper are SYMBOLS that do not convey any literal regeneration, cleansing much less faith but are rather visible TESTIMONIES of what God has ALREADY DONE prior to them in the believer.

The whole soteriology hinges upon Rome's doctrine of baptism, if it falls, so does the whole soteriology of Rome.

I didn't even read this whole post from a couple of lines I know are definately wrong. So, Dr...er...Biblicist. You are wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Even though one quotes explicit and clear statements of Roman Dogma straight from their own Catechism non-Catholics are consistently accused of jerking statements out of context because they claim their dogma is built layer upon layer of definitions.

However, here is the real truth. What they are complaining about is the fact that you do not accept their layers of REINTERPRETATION of Biblical terms which they use to PROPERLY DEFINE their clear and explicit statements.

In other words, they demand that the non-catholic first ACCEPT their DEFINITIONS of Biblical terms and read then their explicit statements by what THEY MEAN rather than what the Bible means by the same terms.

If you don't define their terms the way they do, then you are accused of JERKING OUT OF CONTEXT, and PERVERTING what they MEAN by their clear and explicit stated dogma!

Hence they want to write the book of definition of Biblical terms and demand you abide by their definitions of biblical terms instead of using the Scriptural definition of those terms to critique their definitions and dogma based upon such definitions.


This is all smoke and mirrors to deceive the foolish into ignoring that the Bible defines its own terms and if Rome departs from Biblical definitons and thus "SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM."

However, the howl because you refuse to define their terms their way to justify their dogma. The old addage is, if you accept the foundations laid by your opponent then you will also have to accept the conclusions of your opponent because the former always leads to the latter. I refuse to accept their definitions. I don't jerk anything out of context but simply shine the light of God's Word on their abuse of definitions of Biblical terms.

Wrong again. I think you need to work on your foundational work and proceed from there again.

 

[The Biblicist]

Complex rather than the simple Gospel

Another common problem when dealing with Roman Catholics and most cults is when they cannot defeat you by logic and reason they will resort to making attacks on your person.

I have made no attacks on any person. Indeed, I have not even addressed any person in the last several posts. I am afraid there are strong hints that it will not be long before my person will be the object of slanderous attacks.

The reason that Roman soteriology is so complex is because it is founded upon a distortion of covenant theology that mixes the OLD and NEW covenants into one covenant.

The New Testament reduces and classifies all previous covenants under only TWO covenants and those TWO are contrasted with each other and the TWO terms that highlight this contrast are "works" and "Grace."

The Mosaic Covenant was the epitomy of the works kind of covenant wherein the parties included both God and man. In this kind, or classification of covenant the weak link is ALWAYS man.

The Covenant of Grace is epitomy of grace wherein the parties include only the Three Person's of the Godhead with man being the object rather than the participant in view.

Rome has formulated a covenant it calls grace but which includes both God and Man and the object is justification by works.

Any covenant that attempts to mix grace and works with both God and Man being the responsible parties is simply another version of the Old Covenant or justification by the "works of the law."

The "simplicity" of the gospel is that it does not require a comprehensive understanding of all the covenants of the Bible but only calls for seeing yourself a sinner and Christ your all-sufficent Savior.

 

[The Biblicist]

Personal attacks instead of Issues?

I assure the readers I don't have any Dr. degree. But why should this personal remark be even made? Have I made any personal remarks about anyone on this thread???? Have I boasted in any education that I might or might not have? Why does this have to be reduced to personal issues?

Have I stooped to the level of making remarks about a person on this thread.

Why not stay with Biblical ISSUES and DENOMINATIONAL DOGMA???? I have no desire to stoop to the level of making personal attacks up anyone.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The reason that Roman soteriology is so complex is because it is founded upon a distortion of covenant theology that mixes the OLD and NEW covenants into one covenant.

Are you saying God changes his mind? Are you saying that Jesus sacrifice at Calvary was plan C after the first to plans didn't work out? Are you saying that Even though St. Augustine is correct that

the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New.

You thing God didn't plan for Jesus from the begining? No. God's endgame is Jesus Christ and the establishment of the New and they are certainly apart of each other. The Old Covenant forshadows the new and teaches that we cannot be saved by works of the Law. Thus Jesus fulfills the Law in himself and provides for us a better covenant but that doesn't mean Abraham was not apart of the Family of God which is. You should read Hebrews.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Old is obviously placed in contrast to the New. Why? Is not God the author of both? Certainly, but God's design is not the same for both.

The "new" Covenant is merely "new" in time and space in regard to the public confirmation by the shedding of blood. In reality the "new" covenant is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

The Old Covenant was not designed by God to justify anyone. It was designed to REVEAL THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN so that man saw the complete vanity of attempting be justified by their own good works. It was designed to CONDEMN them as sinners and give them no way out from under God's wrath as long as they sought to be justified before God by way of personal participation.

The New Covenant is designed by God to save His people (Mt. 1:21). God's provision for justification from sin is by the sole participation of the works and death of Jesus Christ alone received through faith. God's provision is to regenerate them by His Spirit and work in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure according to the measure of grace and faith given every believer to obtain the level of sanctification not to enter heaven but to live this life for the glory of God.

The saved man has no will power or ability to overcome indwelling sin (Rom. 7:14-25) but must "mortify the deeds of the flesh" by the power of the indwelling Spirit. The advancement in sanctification ultimately is the consequence of the measure of grace given every believer and so whatever maturity level that may be accomplished in life can only be attributed to God's grace. Justification is by grace. Sanctification is by grace. Glorification is by grace.

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I assure the readers I don't have any Dr. degree. But why should this personal remark be even made? Have I made any personal remarks about anyone on this thread???? Have I boasted in any education that I might or might not have? Why does this have to be reduced to personal issues?

Have I stooped to the level of making remarks about a person on this thread.

Why not stay with Biblical ISSUES and DENOMINATIONAL DOGMA???? I have no desire to stoop to the level of making personal attacks up anyone.

I want to assure you I know you don't have a doctorate. I'm just confusing names as certain people seem to flow together.

 

[The Biblicist]

I want to assure you I know you don't have a doctorate. I'm just confusing names as certain people seem to flow together.

Why reduce this discussion to personal insults? Why even make personal remarks?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Old is obviously placed in contrast to the New. Why? Is not God the author of both? Certainly, but God's design is not the same for both.

In order to hold your belief in this covenant topic you must believe that God contradicts himself rather than progressively reveals himself with the fullest representation of himself. The Lord Jesus Christ.

The "new" Covenant is merely "new" in time and space in regard to the public confirmation by the shedding of blood. In reality the "new" covenant is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

And thus it is that Abraham was saved by Faith rather than law so one covenant flows into the other. You cannot say the old covenant was not fulfilled it was by Jesus Christ who fulfilled it. It was always by faith by which we are now bound in the New covenant. Christianity is a communal faith as well as individual. It is the dispensational method which dichotomize the Old From the New.

The Old Covenant was not designed by God to justify anyone

Yes

It was designed to REVEAL THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN so that man saw the complete vanity of attempting be justified by their own good works. It was designed to CONDEMN them as sinners and give them no way out from under God's wrath as long as they sought to be justified before God by way of personal participation

Yes but it is also a foreshadowing of the Kingdom and the New and is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. You have a problem with that part.

The New Covenant is designed by God to save His people (Mt. 1:21).

All people of those who will.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why reduce this discussion to personal insults? Why even make personal remarks?

What personal insult? I get confused. How is that a personal insult?