The Crux

[Walter]

There is only one history. Can you show me early baptist buildings? What about their writings? You can't can you. Because they don't exist. You can only go back to the reformation and claim ana-baptist but they aren't like modern baptist they were like the amish and the menonites.

In fact, the oldest church ruins ALL have altars. Not very Baptistic!

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3164437,00.html

"In the center of the building the ruins of an altar were found. Archeologists noted that the ruins date from a period that preceded the crucifix as the official ecclesiastical emblem, which explains why fish-shaped decorations were found on most of the mosaic."

 

[Agnus_Dei]

the early church was neither orthodox as in Greek/Rudssian, and the RCC was NOT as it is today!

In one small sense you are right…there was no terms as “Orthodox Church” or “Roman Catholic Church” in early Church history…the terms referenced above originated out of the Great Schism in 1054 to differentiate between the “Western” Church and the “Eastern” Church…

In fact, could make a case that earliest christians were baptistsbefore catholics!

Oh I suspect you’d have an extremely difficult time proving that Yeshua1…I was a raised as a former fundamental Baptist, which was/is a landmark Baptist Church…my former pastor and I had many, many long discussions regarding Church history as it pertained to the Baptist Church…and the best he could do was the “Trail of Blood” booklet…which to me posed more questions than could be answered…

 

[The Biblicist]

In fact, the oldest church ruins ALL have altars. Not very Baptistic!

Rome has BLOOD on her hands as her greatest historical badge proving she is that Great Harlot in Revelation 17:5-6. Here is a "church of God" from its very origin practiced persecuting and killing dissenting Christians as predicted in Rev. 17:5 and John 16:1-4.

 

[Yeshua1]

In one small sense you are right…there was no terms as “Orthodox Church” or “Roman Catholic Church” in early Church history…the terms referenced above originated out of the Great Schism in 1054 to differentiate between the “Western” Church and the “Eastern” Church…

point being made was that early church was Apostolic, and NOT RCC/Orthodox in same sense as traditionals/doctrines/organization, as they would NOT come in until centuries later!

Oh I suspect you’d have an extremely difficult time proving that Yeshua1…I was a raised as a former fundamental Baptist, which was/is a landmark Baptist Church…my former pastor and I had many, many long discussions regarding Church history as it pertained to the Baptist Church…and the best he could do was the “Trail of Blood” booklet…which to me posed more questions than could be answered…

I am referring to the earlyChurch practices/doctrines, how they saw salvation... definitely baptist like!

 

[The Biblicist]

Rome confuses justifying faith with sanctifying faith. Justifying faith is in relationship to the declaration of the gospel and by necessity of the very nature of the gospel must be completely passive in regard to any kind of personal participant activity or contributions in obtaining the propitiation that the gospel reveals has already been obtained and can only be obtained solely and only by the personal activity, contributions and participation of Jesus Christ for his people and in the place of his people. Justifying faith embraces, accepts and rests entirely upon that good news as either failure to receive it or any exerted action to acheive what the Christ already acheived is disobedience to the gospel. Receiving, embracing and resting upon it is obedience to the gospel. This is the "rest" Jesus calls His people unto. Inclusive in the object of faith is the personal righteousness of Christ provided in the personal life of Christ and the payment of sin by His death which sin payment and righteousness are imputed and thus received by faith providing complete and finished legal satisfaction for the believer before God - this is justification by faith.

In contrast, sanctifying faith is the SAME FAITH but not in response or in relationship to the things only Christ could provide as revealed in the gospel but in regard to the things revealed in God's word that we are commanded to obey in our own person and in our own life by means of regenerative love and the indwelling power of the Spirit of God.

The former type of faith would be disobedience and rejection of the finished work of Christ if it included our own participant works whereas the latter would be disobedience and rejection of the revealed will of God if we did not include our own participant works.

Rome fails to distinguish between the two and then charges us with denial of one of the two.

This the OP and "we" have strayed from it. Let us get back on track. This thread is not about traditions or denominational history but about justifying versus sanctifying faith as defined in this OP.

 

[kyredneck]

Rome has BLOOD on her hands as her greatest historical badge proving she is that Great Harlot in Revelation 17:5-6....

No it doesn't:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1742213&highlight=Harlot#post1742213

 

[The Biblicist]

No it doesn't:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1742213&highlight=Harlot#post1742213

Again, Let us get back to the OP. if you want to dispute that erroneous post then lets take it up on a separate thread. Since I was a graduate of that colledge and know Dr. Overbey personally for many years, would be glad to take you up on another thread dedicated to that.

 

[kyredneck]

Again, Let us get back to the OP. if you want to dispute that erroneous post then lets take it up on a separate thread. Since I was a graduate of that colledge and know Dr. Overbey personally for many years, would be glad to take you up on another thread dedicated to that.

It's as I said here , "the RCC has at least acknowledged and attempted to apologize and ask forgiveness for it's past sins."

But that doesn't seem to be of any account to you.

 

[Walter]

I am referring to the earlyChurch practices/doctrines, how they saw salvation... definitely baptist like!

To quote 'Agnus Dei':

'I suspect you’d have an extremely difficult time proving that Yeshua1'

If you have any proof, I am very interested in seeing it.

 

[The Biblicist]

To quote 'Agnus Dei':

'I suspect you’d have an extremely difficult time proving that Yeshua1'

If you have any proof, I am very interested in seeing it.

The Biblical doctrine of salvation is sufficient to condemn both the Western and Eastern Catholic churches as apostate Christian cults.

Both blatantly reject the very heart of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The OP presents the heart of the gospel.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's as I said here , "the RCC has at least acknowledged and attempted to apologize and ask forgiveness for it's past sins."

But that doesn't seem to be of any account to you.

Apologies do no change the past, or change an apostate denomination into a Biblical denomination. Both the Western and Eastern Catholic denominations are apostate in doctrine and practice from the New Testament basics both in soteriology and ecclesiology. My OP presents the crux of the problem between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Biblical doctrine of salvation is sufficient to condemn both the Western and Eastern Catholic churches as apostate Christian cults.

Both blatantly reject the very heart of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The OP presents the heart of the gospel.

Well said!

Also, IF we went all the way back to early church times, christianity...

might be called Roman catholic, but NOT nrearly the same as today, as the whole fully blown heresy of RCC took the future coming of the papacy and Council of trent!

 

[The Biblicist]

Rome confuses justifying faith with sanctifying faith. Justifying faith is in relationship to the declaration of the gospel and by necessity of the very nature of the gospel must be completely passive in regard to any kind of personal participant activity or contributions in obtaining the propitiation that the gospel reveals has already been obtained and can only be obtained solely and only by the personal activity, contributions and participation of Jesus Christ for his people and in the place of his people. Justifying faith embraces, accepts and rests entirely upon that good news as either failure to receive it or any exerted action to acheive what the Christ already acheived is disobedience to the gospel. Receiving, embracing and resting upon it is obedience to the gospel. This is the "rest" Jesus calls His people unto. Inclusive in the object of faith is the personal righteousness of Christ provided in the personal life of Christ and the payment of sin by His death which sin payment and righteousness are imputed and thus received by faith providing complete and finished legal satisfaction for the believer before God - this is justification by faith.

In contrast, sanctifying faith is the SAME FAITH but not in response or in relationship to the things only Christ could provide as revealed in the gospel but in regard to the things revealed in God's word that we are commanded to obey in our own person and in our own life by means of regenerative love and the indwelling power of the Spirit of God.

The former type of faith would be disobedience and rejection of the finished work of Christ if it included our own participant works whereas the latter would be disobedience and rejection of the revealed will of God if we did not include our own participant works.

Rome fails to distinguish between the two and then charges us with denial of one of the two.

Again, the OP demonstrates that both the Eastern and Western Catholic denominations are apostate denominations in connection with the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

They were and still are apostates and will continue to be apostates as the Great Harlot hates Jesus Christ and prove it by replacing him by the Pope, by the church, by the sacraments, by good works and thus trample under their unholy feet the very gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Regeneration is the impartation or renewing of the image of God within us in "true holiness and righteousness" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and is an INWARD "washing and regeneration by the Holy Ghost" (Tit. 3:5) that produces a "new" inward man or "new creation" and it is regeneration or this creative work of God that isthe source of "good works" - "For we are his workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." This is making the tree good so it can produce good fruit.

This good fruit is NEVER manifested in the life of the regenerated/justified person in its FULLNESS or SINLESS PERFECTION but is manifested depending upon the extent of life for its growth and degree determined by the measure of faith and grace and only brought to completion in glorification.

There is no such thing as a justified man by faith without works apart from a regenerated man created "unto good works."

Rome fails to distinguish between the two and charges us with denying one or the other.

Again, Rome confuses regeneration with justification as the source of "good works" (Eph. 2:10). They also fail to recognize that where there is justificaiton by faith without works, there is in addition regeneration "unto good works" and therefore "good works" are always in accompaniment with Jusitification even though they are not the cause of justification or regeneration but only the consequences of regeneration.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Again, Rome confuses regeneration with justification as the source of "good works" (Eph. 2:10). They also fail to recognize that where there is justificaiton by faith without works, there is in addition regeneration "unto good works" and therefore "good works" are always in accompaniment with Jusitification even though they are not the cause of justification or regeneration but only the consequences of regeneration.

Would you call that "regeneration unto good works" sanctification? Don't Catholics also confuse "justification by faith" with "sanctification" or "regeneration unto good works"?

 

[The Biblicist]

Would you call that "regeneration unto good works" sanctification? Don't Catholics also confuse "justification by faith" with "sanctification" or "regeneration unto good works"?

Progressive sanctification originates in regeneration because regeneration is the impartation of "true holiness and righteousness" (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) by a creative act of God (Eph. 2:10) that provides spiritual life and inward cleansing of the human spirit (Tit. 3:5). Hence, we are "his workmanship" which is a CREATIVE work - "created in Christ Jesus" that provides the inward source of all "good works." The indwelling Spirit in connection with the inward new man produce "good works" in and through the life of the believer which are always incomplete until glorification.

In contrast but contemporary with regeneration is justification by faith without works. Justification is the IMPUTATION of righteousness revealed in the gospel concerning the Person and work of Jesus Christ and the NON-IMPUTATION or REMISSION of our sins provided by the death of Christ that obtains a right LEGAL POSITION before God. Hence, justification must be without our participant works as it is the personal works of Christ that have already satisfied the full demands of God against us which is received by faith and which is the basis upon which faith rests solely and only.

The kicker, is that there is no such thing as a justified but unregenerated person. The justification is solely by the works of Christ completely without our participant works while regeneration is never without "good works" as its product. Hence, where there is no good works there is no justification without works and vice versa.

However, that does not confuse regeneration with justification as one is obtained without works while the other is inseparable from "good works" and yet both are simletaneously existent in the believer.

Rome denies their distinction and confuses them together in sacramental salvation.

 

[Fred's Wife]

IOW, justification by faith is our LEGAL POSITION before God based solely on Christ's finished work on the cross of Calvary. Then because we are justified by faith, we are regenerated unto good works (Eph. 2:10; Titus 3:5).

Isn't a sacrament a "work" that imparts some type of grace to the one doing it? Basically sacramental salvation is "works salvation"...correct?

 

[The Biblicist]

IOW, justification by faith is our LEGAL POSITION before God based solely on Christ's finished work on the cross of Calvary. Then because we are justified by faith, we are regenerated unto good works (Eph. 2:10; Titus 3:5).

Isn't a sacrament a "work" that imparts some type of grace to the one doing it? Basically sacramental salvation is "works salvation"...correct?

Correct! It is the repudiation that Christ satisfied all of God's demands against sin by his own personal obedience but rather we must complete them by our own participation with Christ in our own body by our own obedience. Thus an outright objection that Christ "finished" it Himself "for us."

A sacrament is an external means that conveys actual grace. Hence, Rome believes that the actual grace of justification and rengeration are conveyed in the act of water baptism.

However, baptism is a "good work" (not an bad work) because it is something that both you and others participate in.

In contrast, Justification by faith is something no fallen human being can participate in because:

1. The satisfaction required - sinless perfection
2. Christ satisified it in his own body in his own life and on the cross without our participation but for us.
3. Faith simply embraces His obedience as the complete satisfaction for us and rests its hope entirely upon his finished work in our behalf.

Baptism as a "good work" is the product of regeneration rather than the cause of regeneration as we are "created" in Chrsit Jesus "UNTO good works."

In context the description "for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus" (v. 10) is a further expanded explanation of the previous phrase "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (v. 8) which is descriptive of a previous phrase "You hath he quickened" (v. 5).

Hence, baptism is the consequence of progressive sanctification or the outworking of spiritual life created in the believer rather than the sacramental means to obtain spiritual life/regeneration or justification.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Great post Bro Biblicist! :thumbs:

Water (believer's) baptism is a public testimony of faith in Christ and a picture of the gospel-the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:34-38; 16:30-34; 2:37-38). It identifies one with Christ and depicts salvation-dying with Christ and being raised to eternal life with Him (Romans 6:3-6).

Water (believer's) baptism is an ordinance, as is the Lord's Supper...not sacraments.

 

[Yeshua1]

Great post Bro Biblicist! :thumbs:

Water (believer's) baptism is a public testimony of faith in Christ and a picture of the gospel-the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:34-38; 16:30-34; 2:37-38). It identifies one with Christ and depicts salvation-dying with Christ and being raised to eternal life with Him (Romans 6:3-6).

Water (believer's) baptism is an ordinance, as is the Lord's Supper...not sacraments.

because the Grace that saved and regenerated/justified us before God already accomplished that deed, the water just makes an external statement on the inward fact/condition!