A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

[Michael Wrenn]

Why not just accept the teachings on this by jesus and the Apostles though?

Did you miss the part where I said I follow the scriptures -- putting them first in my list?

 

[The Biblicist]

Wouldn't the RCC be guilty of 'trampling underfoot the precious blood of the Son of god", and thus be facing severe judgement from God?

Their soteriologiclal position is not merely "another gospel" altogether but a total repudiation of Christ and his finished work - regardless of their denials.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have stated it in other places but really didn't want to get into it again for that reason, but also because it has been the catalyst for the most vile accusations being posted about me that I have ever encountered.

Briefly, I don't agree with the RC doctrines of sin, and I don't agree with Calvinistic penal substitution and forensic justification; the former leads to works-righteousness and superstition; the latter is legalistic, immoral, and unjust.

Now whatever insults and condemnations get posted this time, I will not respond in kind. I have already hashed and rehashed this, I know what the scriptures and the first millenium of Christendom taught, and I am not a follower of RC or Magisterial Protestantism on this issue; I follow the scriptures, the earliest churches, the early Greek fathers, the ancient Celtic church, and the Anabaptists.

Thank you for asking me about my view.

I just insult, condemn, and will be harsh against your false doctrine rather than you. You are simply wrong and obviously wrong in all these things. A nice fellow but a wrong fellow.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I just insult, condemn, and will be harsh against your false doctrine rather than you. You are simply wrong and obviously wrong in all these things. A nice fellow but a wrong fellow.

Well, I can take that, no problem. And thanks for the compliment.

Of course, I know that it is you who is wrong and has the false doctrine in this case, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

One thing: As I said, I don't agree with either the Calvinist or RC view on this issue. That's why I mostly stayed out of the discussion between you and TS, although I did enjoy reading it. I agreed with some points that both of you made, but not with either position overall.

 

[Yeshua1]

Their soteriologiclal position is not merely "another gospel" altogether but a total repudiation of Christ and his finished work - regardless of their denials.

It would be the ultimate form of a "man centered' Gospel, as we really in the end by our works/efforts save ourselves!

 

[The Biblicist]

It would be the ultimate form of a "man centered' Gospel, as we really in the end by our works/efforts save ourselves!

Yes it is a co-savior, co-partnership, co-redemptive gospel where the ultimate emphasis does not fall on Christ but on YOU. He is not really the Savior in this concept but merely dependent helper who stands by helpless to overcome your cheif problem - the salvation of your will.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes it is a co-savior, co-partnership, co-redemptive gospel where the ultimate emphasis does not fall on Christ but on YOU. He is not really the Savior in this concept but merely dependent helper who stands by helpless to overcome your cheif problem - the salvation of your will.

How does Mary contribute to our salvation in the RCC Gospel?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How does Mary contribute to our salvation in the RCC Gospel?

No. Not in anyway that you are thinking of. However, if you think she prays for the conversion of people in the world and that her prayers are considered for people. Then in a sense maybe but that would be no different than any other Christian praying for the salvation of others.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes it is a co-savior, co-partnership, co-redemptive gospel where the ultimate emphasis does not fall on Christ but on YOU. He is not really the Savior in this concept but merely dependent helper who stands by helpless to overcome your cheif problem - the salvation of your will.

I've been away for awhile and once again you're spreading your false hoods. Let me once again re-itterate what Catholics have always held and I'll get to your longer post in a little bit.

In your sense of salvation - Because you limit salvation just at the entry point of salvation ie going in the door or going past the gate like in Pilgrims progress. At the initial point of entry into the ark of salvation. So when we are speaking of this specific thing - No one is able to 1) desire 2) have ability 3) have an inherent ability to do anything in order to be "saved" (in the limited sense your theology speaks of). Therefore Nothing I can do will "get me saved". However using your theological limitiation of salvation to just one aspect "entry" rather than every thing else after entry I can please God like ones own child pleases their parents. Think of it this way - a child wants to buy a present for their father now the issue isn't whether they are the child of the father (your limitation) they already are the issue is the heart of the child wanting to do something for their father. The child is unable to purchase the present because he doesn't earn an income. He doesn't go to work and of his own ability there is nothing that child can do to get his father a present. However, going to the father and asking for funds in which to purchase the present (in this example funds coincide with Grace), the father gives the child the cash. And immediately goes to buy the present. Upon reciept of the present the father is very happy and receives it as if he hadn't payed for the gift out of his own funds but he did. In fact, could the child of his own accord buy the gift no he is reliant on the father but never the less the child purchases the gift with the grace of the father and the father recieves it with pleasure. This is the sense the catholic is speaking of when we participate in our salvation. First thing is salvation is more than entry into the Kingdom. Second thing all the things we do we do because of Jesus Christ.

 

[Wittenberger]

I've been away for awhile and once again you're spreading your false hoods. Let me once again re-itterate what Catholics have always held and I'll get to your longer post in a little bit.

In your sense of salvation - Because you limit salvation just at the entry point of salvation ie going in the door or going past the gate like in Pilgrims progress. At the initial point of entry into the ark of salvation. So when we are speaking of this specific thing - No one is able to 1) desire 2) have ability 3) have an inherent ability to do anything in order to be "saved" (in the limited sense your theology speaks of). Therefore Nothing I can do will "get me saved". However using your theological limitiation of salvation to just one aspect "entry" rather than every thing else after entry I can please God like ones own child pleases their parents. Think of it this way - a child wants to buy a present for their father now the issue isn't whether they are the child of the father (your limitation) they already are the issue is the heart of the child wanting to do something for their father. The child is unable to purchase the present because he doesn't earn an income. He doesn't go to work and of his own ability there is nothing that child can do to get his father a present. However, going to the father and asking for funds in which to purchase the present (in this example funds coincide with Grace), the father gives the child the cash. And immediately goes to buy the present. Upon reciept of the present the father is very happy and receives it as if he hadn't payed for the gift out of his own funds but he did. In fact, could the child of his own accord buy the gift no he is reliant on the father but never the less the child purchases the gift with the grace of the father and the father recieves it with pleasure. This is the sense the catholic is speaking of when we participate in our salvation. First thing is salvation is more than entry into the Kingdom. Second thing all the things we do we do because of Jesus Christ.

As long as a Roman Catholic, or anyone for that matter, believes that he is saved by God's grace, through faith alone; that his decision or his parent's decision to baptize him is not what saves him. And that none of his good works help in any way to save him, that God does 100% of the saving act, then all the theological theory behind this topic is really in the big scheme of things not important.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, that fits your theory of justification not mine.

Oh Really? you said

Paul says complete satistfacton and justifcation by the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ is received by faith (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24-25).

when I said the above statement you quoted followed by

received at faith

Now you say that better fits my theology. However, look at your next line and guess whose theology that sounds more like

Justification is not a process but a completed point action

Thus at faith means at the point of believing one recieves "complete satsifaction and justification". Thus you would have been more accurate with your theology had you said "complete satisfactoin and justification by the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ is received at faith.". So in essense it perfectly fits your theory of Justification and note what Romans 3 actually says

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

and even looking at the King James version Romans 3:24 says

Being justified

clearly a process is considered here.

No fiction whatsoever.

How could it not be? Look further at your own words.

Christ as the second Adam acted as our legal representative

Jesus acted was legal representative. Even your own language belies the fiction held to be justification. Ie... one is not in fact Just therefore Jesus "hides" the unjust person by blinding God with himself saying "that person behind me is not biblicist, I'm biblicist. I'm acting on his behalf and represent him therefore don't look at him but me." In a very real sense that makes Jesus both unjust and only Justifies us by a legal fiction. Rather Jesus is to

as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water(baptism) with the word(scripture), 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Brackets are my own. And though Paul is speaking about husbands loving their wives he makes a clear refrence to what he plans on doing with believers. To you each bolded part is a fiction because its not so in reality. In my theology each bolded thing is what he does in actuality. So when we are presented in the here after we are without blemish because we have been transformed into his very image by the process of our Justification and Sanctification.

You deny that Christ "FINISHED" or PAID IN FULL the legal obligations of those he represented on the cross.

Not at all. However, I don't believe Jesus plays pretend either. Or manufactures legal justification which is a fictional process. Its like in this country a man condemned of murder may be granted a presidential pardon and legaly is treated as if he never committed the crime. In reality he is still a murderer and we can only hope he has been rehabilitated and won't do it again. In my view Jesus not only pays the full price for our sin but actually rehibilitates us and we come out at the end of the rehibilitation process not capable of sin again.

Humanity’s justification through forgiveness of sins is not a mere covering over man’s sins, but a real destruction of them. It is not a mere external decision but a reality. Sins are forgiven truly and really. God does not declare someone to be justified if he [or she] is not really free. - Valerie A. Karras paper BEYOND JUSTIFICATION:
AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE

and

Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer...This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), - Online Catholic Encyclopedia

You deny the whole idea of a SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF GOD repeatedly taught throughout the book of Leviticus as a SUBSTITUTIONARY SATISFACTION

First of all this is a total misrepresentation. I hold more than you the Notion of Jesus as our Pascal Lamb. What I do deny is the legal fiction which portrays Jesus' as being unjust in providing a legal fiction when in fact he wants to in fact sanctify us and transform us continually until our presentation as the bride of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh Really? you said when I said the above statement you quoted followed by Now you say that better fits my theology. However, look at your next line and guess whose theology that sounds more like Thus at faith means at the point of believing one recieves "complete satsifaction and justification". Thus you would have been more accurate with your theology had you said "complete satisfactoin and justification by the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ is received at faith.". So in essense it perfectly fits your theory of Justification and note what Romans 3 actually says and even looking at the King James version Romans 3:24 says clearly a process is considered here.


How could it not be? Look further at your own words. Jesus acted was legal representative. Even your own language belies the fiction held to be justification. Ie... one is not in fact Just therefore Jesus "hides" the unjust person by blinding God with himself saying "that person behind me is not biblicist, I'm biblicist. I'm acting on his behalf and represent him therefore don't look at him but me." In a very real sense that makes Jesus both unjust and only Justifies us by a legal fiction. Rather Jesus is to Brackets are my own. And though Paul is speaking about husbands loving their wives he makes a clear refrence to what he plans on doing with believers. To you each bolded part is a fiction because its not so in reality. In my theology each bolded thing is what he does in actuality. So when we are presented in the here after we are without blemish because we have been transformed into his very image by the process of our Justification and Sanctification.


Not at all. However, I don't believe Jesus plays pretend either. Or manufactures legal justification which is a fictional process. Its like in this country a man condemned of murder may be granted a presidential pardon and legaly is treated as if he never committed the crime. In reality he is still a murderer and we can only hope he has been rehabilitated and won't do it again. In my view Jesus not only pays the full price for our sin but actually rehibilitates us and we come out at the end of the rehibilitation process not capable of sin again. and


First of all this is a total misrepresentation. I hold more than you the Notion of Jesus as our Pascal Lamb. What I do deny is the legal fiction which portrays Jesus' as being unjust in providing a legal fiction when in fact he wants to in fact sanctify us and transform us continually until our presentation as the bride of Christ.

The question is by you co assisting and helping God to get you "right enough" to be declared full saved, God statndard to legally declare a sinner saved is perfection... Will you meet that stardard at end of your life?

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh Really? you said when I said the above statement you quoted followed by Now you say that better fits my theology. However, look at your next line and guess whose theology that sounds more like Thus at faith means at the point of believing one recieves "complete satsifaction and justification". Thus you would have been more accurate with your theology had you said "complete satisfactoin and justification by the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ is received at faith.".

I was referring to the Biblical phrase "by faith" because that refers to the CHANNEL or MEANS whereby we received justification rather than the TIME we received it.

note what Romans 3 actually says and even looking at the King James version Romans 3:24 says clearly a process is considered here.

Jerked out of the overall context of Romans 3:24-5:2. We were not eternally justified but once a person receives it "by faith" that is their continued COMPLETED state or position before God.

However, the example of Abraham shows their was an Aorist tense point of reception rather than a concurrent INCOMPLETED progressive action both in "uncircumcision" and "cirucmision" as your interpretation demands.

The Aorist and Perfect tenses in Romans 5:1-2 again show there is a point of reception wherein that finished state continues as a FINISHED STATE.

Jesus acted as a representative.

Under the law of our own land, a LEGAL guardian is a REAL guardian even though they are not the NATURAL gardian of a child. They take the place of the natural guardian LEGALLY.

Jesus acted as our LEGAL representative but that does not deny He is our REAL representative. By faith we are LEGALLY imputed his own righteousness according to the LEGAL capacity as our representative and therefore his imputed righteous is LEGALLY our own righteousness and it is our REAL righteousness as far as the LAW is concerned and that is precisely why we are LEGALLY regarded as DEAD to the Law. Your position denies we can be "DEAD" legally to the law through the life and death of Jesus Christ - Rom. 7:1-5.

Not at all. However, I don't believe Jesus plays pretend either.

Jesus did not play pretend but LAWFULLY acted as a REAL reprsentative for his people.

Its like in this country a man condemned of murder may be granted a presidential pardon and legaly is treated as if he never committed the crime.

False analogy! If the president LEGALLY took the place of the man he pardoned and suffered the penalty, then in the eyes of the Law justice has been served and that person cannot be retried or recondemned in the eyes of the law because REAL justice has been legally served.

However, in regard to Christ as our representative, not only has REAL justice been LEGALLY served and satisfied by his own death in the place of the "ungodly" but AFTER SATISFYING ALL LEGAL CLAIMS against us, we take the LEGAL STATUS of being "DEAD" to the law beyond the jurisdiction of the law and thus dead to the law and therefore can no longer be condemned by the Law. In additioin to this complete satisfaction of the Law, his death and resurrection also secure the ultimate and complete transformation of the sinner (not based on law or duty bound by law or subject to the penalty of the law) into a sinless saint by progressive sanctification (not governed or subject to law) consummated in glorification BEFORE He meets Christ in his body (1 Thes. 4:17). Hence, his representative action has secured MORE than LEGAL justification - which completely satisfies all the laws' demands so that we are DEAD to the law but in addition it secures the ACTUAL complete transformation of the "ungodly" into a sinless saint outside the jurisdiction and consequences of the Law.

Ephesians 5:26-27 has nothing to do with justification but is addressed to believers and His work of sanctification.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh Really? you said when I said the above statement you quoted followed by Now you say that better fits my theology. However, look at your next line and guess whose theology that sounds more like Thus at faith means at the point of believing one recieves "complete satsifaction and justification". Thus you would have been more accurate with your theology had you said "complete satisfactoin and justification by the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ is received at faith.". So in essense it perfectly fits your theory of Justification and note what Romans 3 actually says and even looking at the King James version Romans 3:24 says clearly a process is considered here.


How could it not be? Look further at your own words. Jesus acted was legal representative. Even your own language belies the fiction held to be justification. Ie... one is not in fact Just therefore Jesus "hides" the unjust person by blinding God with himself saying "that person behind me is not biblicist, I'm biblicist. I'm acting on his behalf and represent him therefore don't look at him but me." In a very real sense that makes Jesus both unjust and only Justifies us by a legal fiction. Rather Jesus is to Brackets are my own. And though Paul is speaking about husbands loving their wives he makes a clear refrence to what he plans on doing with believers. To you each bolded part is a fiction because its not so in reality. In my theology each bolded thing is what he does in actuality. So when we are presented in the here after we are without blemish because we have been transformed into his very image by the process of our Justification and Sanctification.


Not at all. However, I don't believe Jesus plays pretend either. Or manufactures legal justification which is a fictional process. Its like in this country a man condemned of murder may be granted a presidential pardon and legaly is treated as if he never committed the crime. In reality he is still a murderer and we can only hope he has been rehabilitated and won't do it again. In my view Jesus not only pays the full price for our sin but actually rehibilitates us and we come out at the end of the rehibilitation process not capable of sin again. and


First of all this is a total misrepresentation. I hold more than you the Notion of Jesus as our Pascal Lamb. What I do deny is the legal fiction which portrays Jesus' as being unjust in providing a legal fiction when in fact he wants to in fact sanctify us and transform us continually until our presentation as the bride of Christ.

I have edited the above post after you viewed it to better explain my position. You might want to read it again before posting an answer.