Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

[The Biblicist]

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

If I have to explain to you that the following personal remark is not meant to be flattering:


I want to assure you I know you don't have a doctorate. - Post #77

or that the following are personal remarks have nothing to do with the issues:


Dr...er...Biblicist - Post #64
See Dr...er... Biblicist - Post #70
So, Dr...er...Biblicist - Post #71

much less repeatedly accusing me of being a dishonest broker instead of dealing with the issues, then forget it as you are obviously not serious about even asking what "personal" remarks I refer to????

These are PERSONAL remarks are they not? Again, why not just drop the personal remarks as they have no place in our discussion?


My last five or six posts presented Biblical evidences that you simply dismissed without presenting any evidence why my interpretations of those scriptures was inaccurated. I guarantee that I would never do that to anyone who presented a Biblical argument to me. I don't dodge scriptures that are presented to me as evidence that what I believe is wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

I didn't even read this whole post from a couple of lines I know are definately wrong.

For example?

I didn't misquote the CCC

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
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:


I did not distort the meaning below as you formerly made the very same argument in a previous post that I addressed and you never responded to

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.


How did I misapply one single aspect below?

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 Biblicist]

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.

If you assume there are not two different designs for each covenant than you are right. However, they are placed in CONTRAST with each other throughout the New Testament. For example:

Jn. 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

However, if the Law covenant was given for a different design than the grace covenant and God's purpose was accomplished in both then there is no contradiction.

The law was not given to obtain eternal life (Gal. 3:21) but was given to reveal the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:21). It was not given for justification (Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 3:10-12) but given to lead people to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:24). The law was not designed for the justification of sinners but the covenant of grace was designed for the justification of "the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5).

And thus it is that Abraham was saved by Faith rather than law so one covenant flows into the other.

Paul argues the very opposite in Romans 4:13-16.

You cannot say the old covenant was not fulfilled it was by Jesus Christ who fulfilled it.

I never said that Jesus Christ did not fulfill the law covenant. Here is the crux of the issue! Why did he fulfill it? He was sinless before he ever left heaven. He was sinless in the body he took upon, as he knew no sin, did no sin and neither was sin found in him. Hence, he needed no justification before God before or after the incarnation.

Why did he fulfill it? Because all mankind were CONDEMNED by the law (Rom. 3:19-20) whether Jew or Gentile because the same standard of righteousness written on stones and skins is written on the conscience and man has violated that standard - sinned and the wages of sin is death.

Christ came under the law of God to satisfy its righteous demands by his OWN PERSONAL life and by his OWN DEATH as a SUBSTITUTE for the people the Father gave him in covenant agreement to give eternal life (Jn. 17:2).

It was always by faith by which we are now bound in the New covenant.

The New Covenant salvation was always present (Jn. 1:29) and NEVER by law covenant as that was not God's design for the law covenant. The law covenant in its greatest manifestation was "ADDED" to show the sinfulness of sin but "the law is NOT OF FAITH" - Gal. 3:12.

Christianity is a communal faith as well as individual. It is the dispensational method which dichotomize the Old From the New.

"Christianity" is a communal expression (Acts 2:41-47) but it is not a communal "faith" but it is an INDIVDIUAL faith (Jn. 1:13) not related to any covenant community. The "least to the greatest" in the New Covenant community do not have to be taught by men to know God (catechism) or have proxy faith because they ALL know God personally and individually separate from each other and from all others:

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Infants must be taught to know God and infants in your concept of covenant community are "the least" are they not? Infants that die and go to heaven are taught by God not by men. However, infants that live in your covenant community must be taught by men. Jeremiah is talking about the new covenant and the covenant people have not been taught by men to "know God" (Jn. 17:3).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If I have to explain to you that the following personal remark is not meant to be flattering:


I want to assure you I know you don't have a doctorate. - Post #77

or that the following are personal remarks have nothing to do with the issues:


Dr...er...Biblicist - Post #64
See Dr...er... Biblicist - Post #70
So, Dr...er...Biblicist - Post #71

much less repeatedly accusing me of being a dishonest broker instead of dealing with the issues, then forget it as you are obviously not serious about even asking what "personal" remarks I refer to????

These are PERSONAL remarks are they not? Again, why not just drop the personal remarks as they have no place in our discussion?


My last five or six posts presented Biblical evidences that you simply dismissed without presenting any evidence why my interpretations of those scriptures was inaccurated. I guarantee that I would never do that to anyone who presented a Biblical argument to me. I don't dodge scriptures that are presented to me as evidence that what I believe is wrong.

I explained my confusion as certain posters seem to run together in my mind. You post quite similarily to another poster and in my mind its hard to distinguish the two.
secondly back in post 68 I believe I gave an example of how you take a quote from the catachism misrepresent its meaning because you totally ignore the context with which it was written in and some fundamental things that go before in order to have a proper understanding of what is being said. From what I remember it was a long post and frankly I'm too lazy to do the same with every erronious quote and post you make because you cover such a large swath of topics jumping all over the bible to meet every thing you post just to clarify where you are wrong is tiresome. I suggest you pick just one thing without changing subjects as you have done previously and I will support the Catholic View with bible verses and reasoning and you will support your view and in the end we will agree to disagree. If that is agreeable with you I can work with that. However, if you just want to make a whole swath of accusations then it can't work because I won't want to correct you on each error. For instance this consept of the Catholic Church Where the old covenant is fulfilled and completed in Jesus christ and the New covenant actually is a better argument because I disagree that the Old covenant is plan 1 and the New Covenant was plan 2. Also, I believe that the Old Covenant does show that man cannot earn salvation but I don't then think God disregards it but rather fullfills all of its requirements and causes a natural growth into the New Covenant extending from just the nation of Jews to all the world of men to those who have faith from the very begining all the way back to Adam to the future until the consumation of all things.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sacraments as efficasious signs

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

774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument

1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify

1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ.....




Regardless of how you or Rome may justify a "sacrament" is it correct in your opinion that a sacrament is:

1. A visible sign (symbol) - 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified - 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received in baptism as a sacrament - 1992

Regardless of how one may explain, defend, qualify various distinctions, the bottom line is that baptism is a sacrament and a sacrament is a visible sign wherein the grace of justification is actually communicated by God to the candidate through the church.

My discussion from this point forward will be Rome's definition of a divinely given "sign" in connection with justification and the Bible's definition of a divinely given "sign" in connection with justification.

 

[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

774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument

1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify

1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ.....




Regardless of how you or Rome may justify a "sacrament" is it correct in your opinion that a sacrament is:

1. A visible sign (symbol) - 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified - 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received in baptism as a sacrament - 1992

Regardless of how one may explain, defend, qualify various distinctions, the bottom line is that baptism is a sacrament and a sacrament is a visible sign wherein the grace of justification is actually communicated by God to the candidate through the church.

My discussion from this point forward will be Rome's definition of a divinely given "sign" in connection with justification and the Bible's definition of a divinely given "sign" in connection with justification.

I thought we agreed to go one step at a time. I thought we are on covenant theology. However, now you've jumped to sacraments with out even laying a for sacraments. How can I speak about them to you to clarify what they actually are if you keep jumping around. You just like to accuse. One step at a time to get the understanding. otherwise you miss a whole lot of foundational points. Do you want to discuss sacraments in general or specifically baptism? Or do you just want to air your list which most is in error?
It is clear by your last paragraph that you have outed yourself.

My discussion from this point forward will be Rome's definition of a divinely given "sign" in connection with justification and the Bible's definition of a divinely given "sign" in connection with justification

This is not a statement of one engaged in coversation but one who is pontificating their own views. In fact Biblicist, whom I suspect you are another, you have hijacked this thread to do just that. You have falsely acted as if you were responding to my post and made it about something else as I have shown. You continue to post long threads that are inaccurate about Catholic Belief believing by quoting a text out of context you are making a point. By these tactics you hope to sway people with your personal views and thus are not an HONEST BROCKER FOR DISCUSSION as I have said from the begining and now is revealed in your own statements. This is not a debate to you but an opportunity to spew forth your agenda without honest review of the opposing side.
I should never have responded to you because you've successufly Hijacked this thread from an honest question and answer and question thread. YOU ARE FOUND TO BE BY YOUR OWN WORDS TO NOT BE HONEST ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION.
Therefore anything you say must be taken with care because you have misrepresented your opponent, the Catholic Church, and your own purpose. Your statements are not authoritative to Catholic teaching and your source quotes are suspect of always being taken out of context. This would not only include the Catachism of the Catholic Church but any other document to include the bible.
I am done with you.

 

[The Biblicist]

I thought we agreed to go one step at a time. I thought we are on covenant theology. However, now you've jumped to sacraments with out even laying a for sacraments. How can I speak about them to you to clarify what they actually are if you keep jumping around. You just like to accuse. One step at a time to get the understanding. otherwise you miss a whole lot of foundational points. Do you want to discuss sacraments in general or specifically baptism? Or do you just want to air your list which most is in error?

No, you are the one who suggested a starting point and you are the one that suggested starting with covenants. I did not suggest either or agree to either.

I have selected a starting point and it is baptism as a "sacrament" and the nature of sacraments, specifically as a "sign."

I reject starting with covenants for many reasons. The primary reason is that the subject of covenants is TOO BROAD and gives TOO MUCH ROOM to simply run in circles or chase innumerable rabbit trails. And your prophetic summary would be correct, we would end of simply agreeing to disagree because it covers far too much territory.

The subject I have chosen is really specific and pin pointed and does not depend upon any broader interpretations.

If Rome is wrong in their position that sacraments are "signs" that instrumentally are used by God to convey the reality of what has been signified, then the whole soteriology and ecclesiology of Rome collapses.

This goes right to the issue that divides us without entering into a broad spectrum where we really jump from one aspect to another aspect getting nowhere.

However, I doubt that you will agree to start with such a narrow specific point as you know you have your greatest problems at this point.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have falsely acted as if you were responding to my post and made it about something else as I have shown. You continue to post long threads that are inaccurate about Catholic Belief believing by quoting a text out of context you are making a point. By these tactics you hope to sway people with your personal views and thus are not an HONEST BROCKER FOR DISCUSSION as I have said from the begining and now is revealed in your own statements. This is not a debate to you but an opportunity to spew forth your agenda without honest review of the opposing side.
I should never have responded to you because you've successufly Hijacked this thread from an honest question and answer and question thread. YOU ARE FOUND TO BE BY YOUR OWN WORDS TO NOT BE HONEST ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION.
Therefore anything you say must be taken with care because you have misrepresented your opponent, the Catholic Church, and your own purpose. Your statements are not authoritative to Catholic teaching and your source quotes are suspect of always being taken out of context. This would not only include the Catachism of the Catholic Church but any other document to include the bible.
I am done with you.

You are imputing motives to me that you have no evidence to support. The truth is that I merely read your posts and noticed things that I beleived were serious points of error and then posted comments about. I thought that any member of the forum had the right to post comments in response to anything said in a given post?

I had no strategy in view or some kind of demonic design to side track this thread. When you started accusing me as being a "dishonest" broker, I just broke off direct address and simply focused on the issues that I believe Rome has serious flaws and proves she is not a true church of Christ.

Now, you and I both know why you have broken off "I am done with you." I have correctly quoted the CCC on this specific topic. I have clearly defined the point by three questions which you know are valid questions because they explicitly and repeatedly stated over and over again in the CCC. Finally, you know you cannot defend this point because you have already read the Biblical evidence I will confront you with and you don't have any Biblical based responses - that is the reason. I know you will respond again with all kinds of trumped up charges because you desperatedly want to avoid this issue at all costs. I know that, because when I confronted you with the evidence previously you simply made accusations but would not dare deal with the Bibical evidence placed squarely before. If you could have provided an EXEGETICAL response to my questions in Luke 5:13-15 and Romans 4:11you would have and simply shut my mouth - but you couldn't, didn't and I believe you will run from those questions in regard to a "sign" as fast as you can.

However, I can take rejection.