False Christian Denominations

"Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."

I don't see the point you are trying to make.

God Bless!

 

My point is that those words in HIS "everlasting gospel" would typically not make "honorable mention" when people today talk about "JUST sticking to the Gospel".

What many "call" the Gospel today -- specifically EXCLUDES what the NT writers called the Gospel.

In Romans 2 Paul talks about "his Gospel" and what is in it.

In Rev 14 John talks about the everlasting Gospel - and lists some things in it.

In 1Cor 15:1-8 Paul includes some interesting elements as part of the Gospel he preaches.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In anticipation we wait for someone to respond -- knowing how some will desperately want to flee Romans 2 like it was the plague.

And lo.. and behold...

You have that right so far.. Keep going -- time to do a little exegesis on Romans 2.

I see... so exegeting THIS chapter of Roamns is "out of the question"???

Why so reluctant

Using OTHER scriptures to answer this question is not the "FIRST" step in exegesis.

Exegesis demands that we actually "see" the chapter we are reading and "notice the details".

If it is your contention that "justification" in Romans 2 "has some OTHER meaning" -- you are free to show it.

But you should still be able to answer the direct questions given and you should be able to do it without having to IGNORE the chapter in focus.

Or do you "have a problem" with Romans 2??


I guess we could go to Jame 2 or Matt 7.

From your post it appears that That was pretty painful for you -- but you did well in actually admitting to what the text said.

Now - if you need to "redefine justification" based on some other text - please feel free.

My "rule" was simply to be faithful to the chapter in focus when giving your answer.

Sadly, offering your negative opinion of the actual words in Romans 2 is not a kind of "exegesis".

I am asking for focus, faithfulness and accuracy when answering the questions that naturally arise from a careful reading of Romans 2.

This "should not be that painful" if you don't already object to Romans 2.

No we can not. It says nothing about Mary being the Queen of the Universe for example.

It is pretty obvious that 2:6 is keeping a consistent theme with 2:11-16 is it not?

Rather than "fighting the text" as you are doing - why not just "accept it"??

And start noticing "some details" in the text.

You will find that the "details are your friend".

Don't fear the chapter - accept it.

In your response you seem to claim that even READING Romans 2 is "to fail to rightly divide the Word of God" since all you do is QUOTE it to SHOW your dissapproval of it!

Romans 2 explicitly states details that are true "According to my Gospel" as Paul says.

By "cornered" you mean that YOU feel cornered to have to answer the question about the chapter by giving PAUL's own answer IN the chapter.

How "odd".

Notice that Paul claims that THIS is in the Gospel.

Notice that ONE of the SUCCEEDING cases in Romans 2 - consists of the most extreme example - Gentiles without the Word of God -- having the NEW Covenant attribute of the LAW WRITTEN on the heart.

That is a "detail" not to be missed.

Note also that the justification mentioned in Romans 2 is "future" in fact it is "ON the day WHEN God judges the secrets of all mankind through the man CHRIST Jesus".

The more we get into this chapter the less you are going to fear it.

Instead of thinking that Paul "Does NOT give the TRUE answer" in Romans 2 -- you are going to find that in Romans 2 you DO have the gospel and you DO have the infallible Word of God - TRUE to the last letter.

You will find that it fits PERFECTLY with all of scripture (yes - PAUL even fits perfectly WITH PAUL).

Instead of taking the either-or bifurcation fallacy where TRUTH is some place other than Romans 2 when it comes to the Gospel and Justification - you will discover a "harmony" in the scripture where Romans 2 IS TRUE and FITS perfectly.

 

Having noted the attempt to completely disregard the details/facts/gospel truth in Romans 2 -- I do agree with your statements on the truth presented in Romans 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I asked for a review of Romans 2 to see the "obvious details" of the chapter "admitted to" by those who flee Romans 2 like it was the Plague...

Question #2 ..."WHO are the successful examples being justified in this statement?"

According to the text of Romans 2 -- the actual words Paul is using...

And after fleeing the chapter in a rather long response Steaver answers this Rom 2 question with ...

Well at least if your not going to allow yourself to see the chapter - the least you can do is take up little space in "not looking".

I appreciate the efficiency of that answer.


Question #3 ..."ON what future day are they justified according to this text -- (quote please)?" - From the actual text of what Paul said in Romans 2

And Stever gives this answer

Why is is that actually doing exegesis on Romans 2 "is a total disregard for God's commands".

Do you fear the chapter "that much"???

Steaver then goes on "as if" his previous "exact negation" of Romans 2:13 had any exegetical merrit from the Romans 2 chapter "at all"

Again I thank you for ignoring the text of Pauls' words in Romans 2 in this efficient manner - so as to avoid any notion of exegesis of Romans 2 in your response.

Please note - accurately/faithfully exegeting the chapter WAS/IS my explicit goal in asking these questions.

"Other scripture" can certainly expand and add more detail to the infallible truth given in Romans 2 I agree. But lets get the "easy part" first rather than fearing it so much.

In Romans 2 Paul says that these Gentiles that have the New Cov LAW written on the heart WILL be approved on that FUTURE day -- when GOD will JUDGE mankind through Christ (some day future to Paul obviously).

Paul argues explicitly that the approval of those like the gentiles of Rom 2:11-16 that happens in that future judgment day IS a key part of HIS Gospel message.

These facts come FROM the chapter.

The details IN the chapter are just not that scary Steaver - and they are pretty easy to get.

I recommend sticking with the chapter to establish the "easy" baseline.

"Again" you re-cast this as "only failing" though Paul says they succeed.

"Again" you attempt to deal with the DETAILS of Romans 2 by "ignoring them".

"again" you insert the justification FUTURE that is mentioned in Romans 2 and that happens IN the context of REPENTANCE in Rom 2:3-4... INTO the Romans 3 context which is entirely different.

As Paul notes the future judgment here where these gentiles without scripture are APPROVED is specific to "HIS GOSPEL".

Daniel 7 speaks of a future judgment day when "JUDGDMENT is passed IN FAVOR of the saints".

Paul and Daniel are on the same page (so to speak) when speaking of that future event.

Question #4 ..."In James' Gospel by what are the saints judged in the future?"

See? you fear James 2 "less" apparently and are willing to spend a bit more time with "The details" without calling the mere act of paying attention to them "A violation of the command of God to rightly divide the word".

I applaud your bravery in that chapter!

Nice going!

Notice where James finds "The LAW of Liberty"??

Lets see some "details" IN The chapter of James 2

Notice that Jamss states that the FACT of our future judgement BASED on those Ten Commandments should motivate us in life and action "SO LIVE and so ACT as those WHO ARE TO BE JUDGED by the Law of Liberty"

This means that James is on the same page as PAUL when we compare James 2 with Romans 2.

How "interesting" wouldn't you say?

So don't you think you can give the infallible truths of Romans 2 an actual read now?

Sorry to have to say this -- but you did not pay attention to "the details" of James 2.

The law you are quoting from is What James calls the ROYAL LAW in James 2 - and to get that he quotes from Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5.

The LAW of LIBERTY is the term he uses when he quotes from the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Kinda reminds you of what D. L. Moody said about them doesn't it?

Question #5 ..."Knowing that - what are they supposed to do according to the actual words in the text? (quote please)

Nice going! And you did not seem to feel abused by having to actually quote the chapter for that answer NOR did you make it "my short answer" but indeed - James'!

I applaud your approach there.

Notice that it is to affect our actions our motives "SINCE we are to be judged in that future day BY the LAW of Liberty" quoted from the Ten Commandments as we see in James 2 -- James urges the saints to direct the way they live and act BASED on that fact!

How "instructive".

Again - kinda reminds me of what D.L. Moody said about them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Question #6 ..."In Romans 8 it is those who are " by the Spirit putting to death the .." What... that are the children of God?? (Quote please).

That was the infallible truth Paul stated in Romans 2:13.

I am not speaking to that as much in Romans 8 except to notice that the deeds of the flesh ARE evident (Gal 5 points that out and 1Cor 6 points that out) as law breaking.


Question #7 ..."In Matt 7 - in Christ's gospel it is not the "HEARERS " but rather those who "WHAT" that enter heaven? (Quote please).

#1. Jesus is speaking in MAtt 7 before the Cross - are you saying that God was demanding rebellion against His Word pre-Cross??

#2. Jesus said pre-cross "IF You love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14.

#3. EVEN AFTER the Cross we see in Rev 12 that "The SAINTS are those who KEEP GOD's COMMANDMENTS".

#4. In Matt 7 Christ said "He who HEARS these words of mine and DOES NOT keep them is like someone who builds his house on sand".

It IS obedience to the WORD of God that is the subject of Matt 7. No question about it.

In the areas where NT authors deal with obedience vs rebellion - it is always obedience that they call for.

Kinda reminds me of D. L. Moody's sermon on the Ten Commandments.

Now we are in agreement.

As for the justification that we find in Romans 3 and Romans 5 - (Justificatoin past - individual, subjective and historic. It changes the salvation status of the person)...

Again - GIVEN my context statment above that explicity AVOIDS the subject of Romans 2's "Justification FUTURE" on that FUTURE day when God judges the secrets of all mankind through Christ -- we are in agreement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul says the LAw is HOLY JUST and Good.

The LAW IS the WORD of God.

Paul said that as saints our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

Paul said in Heb 8 that the NEW COVENANT WRITES the LAW of God on our heart.

result: Christ did NOT come to "DEFEAT His Word".

Christ did not come to "DEFEAT the LAW" that HE writes on our heart via the New Covenant".

Christ did NOT COME to "DEFEAT THE LAW" that He has the saints of Rev 12 keep - "the Commandments of God".

But HE did come to address the "CURSE of the LAW" -- law that REMAINS in effect placing EACH new human born into this world under sin - and under the need of a Savior.

Now you are back on the right track again.

Instead of DEFEATING the LAW - Christ came to UPHOLD it even to the point of UPHOLDING the PENALTY it demands for those who violate it!

A good point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Its not about "The Church", its about the Holy Bible as the standard, that leads the True Church, The Bride of Christ. Baptist History is HIS story, and the groups that are and were the same BEFORE the Baptist tag are THE ORIGINAL CHURCH DOCTRINE HOLDERS. "The Church" WAS but has been preaching "Damnable heresy" since about 300 A.D. I've not always been a child of God (obviously) but, I am now. I 've never been a "Protestant" because I'm not protesting anything, I have and all of my brethern and sistern in Christ who HOLD to the ORIGINAL DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, REGARDLESS OF NAME, are on the same "narrow way" GLORY HALLELUJEAH!!! JESUS ALONE SAVES!!! SOLA SCRIPTURA!

 

This is not quite true. Exegesis is not confined to "chapters". One must consider the entire letter and according to the scriptures should consider other scripture as well. Paul did not write any letters with chapters. Chapters usually indicate different subjects and topics. In the Bible's case chapters and verse numbers are only given for refference points.

I gave an exegesis on the topic and could have been more thorough which would only have strengthened my position.

You in return gave us yours. I believe you are in error as you do I. So where does that leave us?

This is where we stand Bob. You and I are brothers in Christ and it is Christ who will declare to us at His judgment seat for believers who it is who studied and rightly divided the word of truth. I have spent long hours in prayer with God asking for light about all the positions I take. I feel God has led me into the positions I have embraced. If this proves out to be wrong, then I must suffer the consequences of my preaching at the refining fire. Being human I know I could have misread the promptings of the Holy Spirit. All I can do is pray with all humility and hope that I am used only for the good of the Kingdom of God. If I am found out to be a leader of falsehoods then I will only humbly ask Jesus to forgive me and take my place in His command wherever He deems me worthy.

We are called to build doctrine on the foundation of Jesus Christ and His life, death, burial and ressurrection. We both have this foundation and now we build there upon. I pray ye do well and the Lord blesses you.

" For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire: and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall recieve a reward " (1 Cor 3:11-14)

I pray you recieve many rewards!

God Bless!

 

No I don't. I was told this in seminary by some professors.

 

1John 2: 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


You my find seat warmers leave but not
"born again christians"

 

Have you actually had a conversation with someone who converted to Catholicism?

 

I have. A very good friend of mine studied it and converted. Not for marriage, but because he wanted to serve God as completely as he could, and found the RCC the best path to do so through.

I would note that he was a Baptist to begin with, and tried several other Protestant denominations. He is, by the way, that he is most definitely a Christian. Born again. So...

 

That is such a sad story. Here is a person desiring to serve God completely and has given himself/herself over to religion, the very thing God hates. I find it very strange that one born again would "study" catholicism and decide that it is in anyway serving God. Very strange...

God Bless!

 

The rule in Exegesis is not to ignore the chapter being exegeted while selecting some "other chapter" as your "preferred"
doctrine.

There is just no escaping that.

It is true that Exegesis allows us to go to other chapters AFTER noting each detail and local context for the chapter we are reading.

It does not allow us to READ another chapter INSTEAD of looking at the details in the one being exegeted.

When you see yourself doing that very thing (as in the case pointed out previously with your avoidance of Romans 2) then you know your bias is overriding your objectivity. Clearly you find Romans 2 to be "inconvenient" at the very least.

My point is that Romans 2 happens to be infallible reliable Gospel truth just as is Romans 3. You seem to chafe at that idea.

My point is that Paul SAYS Romans 2 is in accordance with the Gospel he is preaching. So we can not go to some other place where Paul speaks of the Gospel and say "yes but that Gospel does NOT include the Romans 2 infallible truths about people really succeeding in being Justified in that future day when God judges the world through Christ Jesus".

Basically - as you see yourself contradicting the infallible text (and I pointed out EXACT contradiction in your statement vs Paul in Rom 2:13) - you know that "you are avoiding something" in the infallible text.

As you yourself noted the entire chapter is CONSISTENT in Romans 2 - you even point out that 2:6 goes along with 2:11-16 and in fact the entire chapter.

And -- as it turns out -- the entire chapter is emphasized and restated AGAIN in Romans 6 and AGAIN in Romans 8:1-16. Paul never leaves it's infallible truth for the Christian!

In your response you object to "chapters" as this points out your use of 3 whenever "Details about 2" are being asked for.

Fine call it "sections of the letter" if you don't like "chapters" and we will call Romans 2 "section B" and chapter 3 "Section C".

The point remains - you are fleeing from the infallible truths contained in "section-B" of the letter to the Romans like it was the plague.

You need to take that "As a sign" of something missing in your doctrinal views on Justification since Justification is the SUBJECT of Romans 2.

You exegete a chapter -- not a topic. The problem is that you were trying to exegete your doctrinal view on Justification (which does not come AT ALL from Romans 2) instead of exegeting Romans 2. Hence in your own text - we see you avoiding the infallible gospel text of Romans 2 as if the chapter did not even exist.

Well there are obvious objective facts impossible to ignore.

#1. The rule for exegesis is to exegete chapters of the infallible text -- not "topics" which are collections fallibly assembled so as to be possibly be "incomplete".

#2. I in fact DID exegeted the infallible TEXT of Romans 2 as that was the subject and focus from the start.

#3. You did NOT exegete the TEXT but rather a topic showing that when you look at the TOPIC you do NOT go to Romans 2 for the infallible Gospel statements it makes on JUSTIFICATION future.

These are the objective facts in the discussion so far -- impossible to ignore.

I fully agree that the likely outcome is that you cling to your "topic" without Romans 2 and I cling to my view that Exegesis is done ON the infallible TEXT not topics. (Because "topics" can be framed so as to weed out "inconenient texts" as you have done.)

However complete agreement on everything is not a requirement for discussion, fellowship or sainthood. So we may continue.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I have stated - I believe you are correct in the view of "justification past" that Paul brings out in Romans 3 and Romans 5:1-2.

Your error is not in promoting that half of the solution. Your error is in turning from the "Justification future" principle that is ALSO part of the picture.

Justification past is the thing that "changes our status" -- makes us a child of God - born-again, saints.

The Romans 2 "Justification future" does not change our status at all. It is a corporate, objective review of facts - details - events according to the rule of Matt 7, done in the format of Daniel 7, done in the future as we see in Romans 2.

I believe in the "Total depravity of the soul" without Christ which means the gentiles of Romans 2 that do not have scripture CAN NOT have the New Covenant promise fulfilled -"The LAW written on the heart" without the Holy Spirit doing it as Romans 2 points out consistently.

That means that they are truly born-again, saints and are approved in that future justification which merely "Shows" as in the Matt 7 idea of "Showing" that they are new creations in Christ.

I applaud your spirit and join with you in that.

The point I have made about Romans 2 is hard for many people to see (even those in my own church) but I think that accepting Romans 2 as the infallible Gospel teaching "on Justification futurer" that Paul claims it to be - will actually benefit the reader rather than hurting them.

I pray the same for you and agree that in the end our lives are in Christ and our teaching judged as the text of 1Cor 3 states.

However I am adamant about not separatig scripture into the "good Bible" vs the "bad Bible" which is a tendancy of people in all churches to do (yes even my own).

Blessings Steaver - I have enjoyed this discussion and do agree with your views on Justification past.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can see that people that are not aware of just how much light they have - might give it up and go to something less valuable thinking it was greater light. In the studies that JWs have done with me - I found them to be Ex-Baptists and Ex-Methodists that were really not well grounded in their former church. In fact they admit that they were MORE informed about what the Bible actually said AFTER becoming JW than before.

I can fully believe that since the JWs do a massive amount of Bible study.

I can also see how even a studying-believing practicing person would go from "less light" to more. I can see how one might be RC then JW then Baptist for example. Or Hindu then RC then Baptist.

But I can not see how a Baptist would choose to become RC if they were really staying "in the Word" and paying attention to the lessons of the Reformation. It is impossible to see how someone would deliberately leap backwards like that.

On the other hand - the RC posters on this board have brought up some very good - very challenging points in their favor. If someone DID NOT have the benefit of coming here and SEEING those points posted - and SEEING the compelling responses given here - it COULD BE that they would be unprepared for a barrage of "unnanswered questions".

Certainly the RC arguments about some Church Fathers taking RC positions could be made with a Baptist.

Certainly the RC arguments about how the RCC historically evolved over time from the earlier centuries would be devastating to someone who thought otherwise.

Certainly the RC arguments in favor of Mary as god-4 (in essence) bent around as IF this is really an "Exaultation of the diety of Christ" would catch many off guard.

And certainly the RC argumentes on the compilation of the NT and the authority for that compilation make a compelling case.

If one's own church covers up the Reformers clear teaching on just how accurately the Bible identifies the RCC in Romans 12 and 13 and Daniel 7 and 8 and predicts her 1260 year oppression of the saints during the dark ages - it would be easy to "go for the glitter".

So in a sense - maybe the non-RC groups have only themselves to blame when one of the sheep falls for that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is such a sad story. Here is a person desiring to serve God completely and has given himself/herself over to religion, the very thing God hates. I find it very strange that one born again would "study" catholicism and decide that it is in anyway serving God. Very strange...

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Why use quotation marks around study as if it weren't actually studying? Being 2000 years away and different languages apart from the time of Christ, it makes sense that a person would want to go and read and study what the original documents said and what the early believers believed them to mean in their context. That requires study.

 

That is such a sad story. Here is a person desiring to serve God completely and has given himself/herself over to religion, the very thing God hates. I find it very strange that one born again would "study" catholicism and decide that it is in anyway serving God. Very strange...

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]How can you type such a thing, then say, "God Bless?"

I've yet to be able to understand this vile hatred of Catholicism, even though I myself have been guilty of it.

Is it that all Christians, everywhere must adhere to your exclusive and precise interpretation of Scripture, and agree to all your ancillary theological minutae, before you'll accept them as part of the Body? Because, my judgemental friend, if this is the case, you are in for a very lonely time of it.

 

I can see that people that are not aware of just how much light they have - might give it up and go to something less valuable thinking it was greater light. In the studies that JWs have done with me - I found them to be Ex-Baptists and Ex-Methodists that were really not well grounded in their former church. In fact they admit that they were MORE informed about what the Bible actually said AFTER becoming JW than before.

I can fully believe that since the JWs do a massive amount of Bible study.

I can also see how even a studying-believing practicing person would go from "less light" to more. I can see how one might be RC then JW then Baptist for example. Or Hindu then RC then Baptist.

But I can not see how a Baptist would choose to become RC if they were really staying "in the Word" and paying attention to the lessons of the Reformation. It is impossible to see how someone would deliberately leap backwards like that.

On the other hand - the RC posters on this board have brought up some very good - very challenging points in their favor. If someone DID NOT have the benefit of coming here and SEEING those points posted - and SEEING the compelling responses given here - it COULD BE that they would be unprepared for a barrage of "unnanswered questions".

Certainly the RC arguments about some Church Fathers taking RC positions could be made with a Baptist.

Certainly the RC arguments about how the RCC historically evolved over time from the earlier centuries would be devastating to someone who thought otherwise.

Certainly the RC arguments in favor of Mary as god-4 (in essence) bent around as IF this is really an "Exaultation of the diety of Christ" would catch many off guard.

And certainly the RC argumentes on the compilation of the NT and the authority for that compilation make a compelling case.

If one's own church covers up the Reformers clear teaching on just how accurately the Bible identifies the RCC in Romans 12 and 13 and Daniel 7 and 8 and predicts her 1260 year oppression of the saints during the dark ages - it would be easy to "go for the glitter".

So in a sense - maybe the non-RC groups have only themselves to blame when one of the sheep falls for that.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]It is also possible that you, like I, do not know everything there is to know.

Just an observation. You and steaver are passing judgement on soemeone you've never met. I know this guy, and can attest to his faith in Christ.

In contrast, I can only see your religious attitudes and judgementalism. Were I to base my assessment of your Christianity thus, it would be unfairly bleak, as I am sure in real life you are both people who live out the word of God.

Just an observation. Ignore it at will.