A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[ReformedBaptist]

You just cannot bring yourself to answer it can you?

But the Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. So my point is that, if you believe that Jesus is present in your worship services, why do you not fall down on your knees and worship Him? If you don't believe the He is present, then simply say so - I am not casting judgement either way.

Peace!

I answered it, but your trying to equivocate my worship of Jesus, which as the Scriptures say is in spirit and truth, do your papal doctrine of bowing down and worshippng some wine and cookies.

The Lord Jesus is always present with me...whether when I gather with the saints, or adore Him at home with my family, or when I drive to and from work. We do not worship on this mountain or that hill, but we worship in spirit and in truth, because these worshippers is who the Father is seeking.

We don't worship liquid and cookies that we suppose turn into flesh and blood.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Now lets consider your response:

"In reality its not either. Christ isn't being broken. Bread is"

Seems to me what you said is the reality given in the Bible just as I concluded that the FACT given in Scripture is in contrast to the FICTION in the Mass. So, I am not way off at all but RIGHT ON.

"And if they say his presence is there and they beleive it in the Eucharist"

What they say is FICTION in regard to the mass. So again my distinction between the FACT of scriptures and the FICTION of Rome is a correct distinction.

"again it isn't christ being broken but bread [FACT]or accidents [FICTION]."

"And christ is received [FICTION] by all whole not broken [FICTION] so your view falls even with that [FICTION].

Do you even realize that in your concluding statement you are actually defending the FICTION of Rome??? The FACT is that what they observe is not the Lord's Supper at all (I Cor. 11:20) but is FICTIOUS from beginning to end and has no bearing, no relationship, no resemblance to the FACTUAL Biblical teaching or practice.

You are confussing your self. I'll explain why.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. What is being discussed is the their theological implications on the dogma as they believe it. You attempt to say that by this standard 1) They resacrifice Christ. 2) they are drinking blood.

I've shown to you by their dogma the theological implications by this standard that 1) you are wrong on point one and 2) wrong on point two. Period.

Then you apply what you believe (which wasn't the discussion) and try to make it apply to the catholic (which it can't). Futher you apply your beliefs in such a way as to judge the catholic by your premise or bias.
Now when you say

What they say is FICTION in regard to the mass. So again my distinction between the FACT of scriptures and the FICTION of Rome is a correct distinction.

Is not only wrong its irrelevant. I will now show you how you are wrong. "What they say is fiction" to your bias and belief system this is correct not to them. It is FACT based on their theological system. Not on yours. To place your position correctly. I believe what Rome teaches theological is fiction. But that's all you've presented. No accompanying support. I can buy this is what you think. It is not what they think. So your statement is unsupported here.
Then you make the ludicrous statement

again it isn't christ being broken but bread [FACT]or accidents [FICTION]."

Why is it ludicrous 1) practically speaking bread is being broken (unlevened bread at that) which you agree is fact where you fail is 2)this can not be distinguished from Accidents or the matter which the bread is made up of. Thats like saying its fiction to believe that when you break the bread you break bread material form. See how that is silly?
This statement you make breaks down by the very first principle I've laid out

And christ is received [FICTION] by all whole not broken [FICTION] so your view falls even with that [FICTION].

Again Its their theological statement and what they believe. To say that they actually are re-sacrificing Christ (an impossibility btw) by their theological implication is a wrong statement because since 1) they believe they receive Christ (fiction or not irrelevant to the discussion) 2) they believe they receive him whole rather than broken thus the beaking didn't affect christ sacrifically or not.

Finally your statment

Do you even realize that in your concluding statement you are actually defending the FICTION of Rome???

Is also misapplied. I defending not their belief but what it is they actaully assert. Thus if I said "communist believe that individuals have property rights" is wrong because communist don't hold such a belief. Some one must explain to me that property and wealth aquisition do not belong to the individual but to the society as a whole and must be redistributed.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Greek term "anamnesis" does not mean or imply that an object is changed or altered or made real in any sense of actual existence. It is used consistently in the New and Old Testaments (Sabbath, sin) to simply bring the reality to the conscious mind of the observer. It is used for the remembrance of the Sabbath and remembrance of sin but neither the Sabbath or sin are changed or made objectively real in any sense. Subjectively, observance of the Sabbath brings it to your conscious thinking. Remembrance of the Lord's Supper simply means that we are to observe it by conscious understanding of what it represents - nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if its just symbolic then there shouldn't be any penalty for partaking unworthily should there? After all, its just a piece of bread and a cup of grape juice. Right...



And you just danced around most of what I wrote. Again, look at the Jewish passover meaning of the "memorial" - it is far more than a simple recollection - it means to make it real! That is the Jewish context and the one used and understood by Jesus and the apostles.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, I understand your approach and why you approach it that way and if I were in your shoes coming from your background and having to deal with your family I would be careful to understand their perspect and present it correctly if I had to deal with them.

However, even so, I would also have to reject their interpretation, definitions, philosophical explanations not due to their own merits as their arguments may be well grounded in the foundations they have chosen to build from but due to the reality of what the scripture actually teaches. I would also have to present to them the reality of what they are really doing and teaching versus what they fictiously think they are doing and vigoriously defend.

I don't argue from their foundations because that will only lead me to their conclusions. I reject their foundations completely and make my argument from the Scriptures based on what I believe the scriptures teach not from what they believe.

You are confussing your self. I'll explain why.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. What is being discussed is the their theological implications on the dogma as they believe it. You attempt to say that by this standard 1) They resacrifice Christ. 2) they are drinking blood.

I've shown to you by their dogma the theological implications by this standard that 1) you are wrong on point one and 2) wrong on point two. Period.

Then you apply what you believe (which wasn't the discussion) and try to make it apply to the catholic (which it can't). Futher you apply your beliefs in such a way as to judge the catholic by your premise or bias.
Now when you say Is not only wrong its irrelevant. I will now show you how you are wrong. "What they say is fiction" to your bias and belief system this is correct not to them. It is FACT based on their theological system. Not on yours. To place your position correctly. I believe what Rome teaches theological is fiction. But that's all you've presented. No accompanying support. I can buy this is what you think. It is not what they think. So your statement is unsupported here.
Then you make the ludicrous statement Why is it ludicrous 1) practically speaking bread is being broken (unlevened bread at that) which you agree is fact where you fail is 2)this can not be distinguished from Accidents or the matter which the bread is made up of. Thats like saying its fiction to believe that when you break the bread you break bread material form. See how that is silly?
This statement you make breaks down by the very first principle I've laid out Again Its their theological statement and what they believe. To say that they actually are re-sacrificing Christ (an impossibility btw) by their theological implication is a wrong statement because since 1) they believe they receive Christ (fiction or not irrelevant to the discussion) 2) they believe they receive him whole rather than broken thus the beaking didn't affect christ sacrifically or not.

Finally your statment Is also misapplied. I defending not their belief but what it is they actaully assert. Thus if I said "communist believe that individuals have property rights" is wrong because communist don't hold such a belief. Some one must explain to me that property and wealth aquisition do not belong to the individual but to the society as a whole and must be redistributed.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The facts - the reality - according who, you? Then please explain how it is that the Church has been teaching this "error" for two thousand years and God just let those poor Catholics go straight to hell for committing such idolatry only to suddenly realize - "Hey! Those stupid Catholics have it wrong so I think I will suddenly reveal the truth to the reformers." Just look at the catacombs if you don’t believe me.

Well, I am going to remind you of something that Catholics simply hate to be reminded about. There are those pesky people that the Catholics hate and despise and called heretics and charge every imaginable perversion to since 250 A.D. until the time that Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the door of Witenburg - THE ANABAPTISTS.

Yes, if we believe the Roman monk historians they were a terrible heretical people who always opposed Rome in a consistent succession since 250 A.D. under a variety of names but all called "Anabaptists" by these Roman monk historians.

The Roman monks tell us that these "anabaptists" consistenly called Rome the Great Whore and the Pope the Antichrist and consistently claimed themselves as the true apostolic churches with the keys of the kingdom.

Guess what? That is what I am - an "Anabaptist." Now, that you know that , you can take up the trade of your Roman Monkism historians and continue to attribute trash to our history.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, I understand your approach and why you approach it that way and if I were in your shoes coming from your background and having to deal with your family I would be careful to understand their perspect and present it correctly if I had to deal with them.

However, even so, I would also have to reject their interpretation, definitions, philosophical explanations not due to their own merits as their arguments may be well grounded in the foundations they have chosen to build from but due to the reality of what the scripture actually teaches. I would also have to present to them the reality of what they are really doing and teaching versus what they fictiously think they are doing and vigoriously defend.

I don't argue from their foundations because that will only lead me to their conclusions. I reject their foundations completely and make my argument from the Scriptures based on what I believe the scriptures teach not from what they believe.

You do have to use scritpure to show where their interpretations are wrong. However, If I were to say they are re-sacrificing Christ it would be easily shot down based on their view and they would ultimately say I'm adding things to their faith that doesn't exist.

Now I can discuss based on the text of scripture where Jesus is pointing out something metaphorically such as in John 6 because the basis text is "to belief on him whom the father sent" and work from there. That only gives some leverage. Because authoritatively the scriptures is one of two heads that teaches the fulness of truth to them. So Authority then becomes the next topic to determine a final resting place on which Authority lays which we can go back to determining it from scripture etc... It sounds easy but in fact it is not. As I've tried to show here. Sometimes I wish they were as simple as the majority of nominal catholic are but no such luck.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You do have to use scritpure to show where their interpretations are wrong. However, If I were to say they are re-sacrificing Christ it would be easily shot down based on their view and they would ultimately say I'm adding things to their faith that doesn't exist.

Now I can discuss based on the text of scripture where Jesus is pointing out something metaphorically such as in John 6 because the basis text is "to belief on him whom the father sent" and work from there. That only gives some leverage. Because authoritatively the scriptures is one of two heads that teaches the fulness of truth to them. So Authority then becomes the next topic to determine a final resting place on which Authority lays which we can go back to determining it from scripture etc... It sounds easy but in fact it is not. As I've tried to show here. Sometimes I wish they were as simple as the majority of nominal catholic are but no such luck.

My friend, they do not accept scripture as final authority EXCEPT as it is interpreted by the Church, its counsels, the fathers, traditions, papal decrees. You will ALWAYS run into a wall by your approach - ALWAYS.

You will ALWAYS be charged with misinterpreting the scriptures, history, philosophy because you do not funnel it through Rome.

That is why I do not take your approach because it is futile. You must ultimately depend upon the power of the Holy Spirit and by faith use the SWORD of the Spirit trusting him to break down the imaginations and traditions of men (2 Cor. 10:5).

You could not better understand Catholic doctrine than Luther, Calvin and other Reformers and look what reasoning with the doctrinal elite of Rome got them?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The facts - the reality - according who, you? Then please explain how it is that the Church has been teaching this "error" for two thousand years and God just let those poor Catholics go straight to hell for committing such idolatry only to suddenly realize - "Hey! Those stupid Catholics have it wrong so I think I will suddenly reveal the truth to the reformers." Just look at the catacombs if you don’t believe me.

Well, I am going to remind you of something that Catholics simply hate to be reminded about. There are those pesky people that the Catholics hate and despise and called heretics and charge every imaginable perversion to since 250 A.D. until the time that Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the door of Witenburg - THE ANABAPTISTS.

Yes, if we believe the Roman monk historians they were a terrible heretical people who always opposed Rome in a consistent succession since 250 A.D. under a variety of names but all called "Anabaptists" by these Roman monk historians.

The Roman monks tell us that these "anabaptists" consistenly called Rome the Great Whore and the Pope the Antichrist and consistently claimed themselves as the true apostolic churches with the keys of the kingdom.

Guess what? That is what I am - an "Anabaptist." Now, that you know that , you can take up the trade of your Roman Monkism historians and continue to attribute trash to our history.

Dr. Walter, would you count the waldenses in this group?

 

[BillySunday1935]

The facts - the reality - according who, you? Then please explain how it is that the Church has been teaching this "error" for two thousand years and God just let those poor Catholics go straight to hell for committing such idolatry only to suddenly realize - "Hey! Those stupid Catholics have it wrong so I think I will suddenly reveal the truth to the reformers." Just look at the catacombs if you don’t believe me.

Well, I am going to remind you of something that Catholics simply hate to be reminded about. There are those pesky people that the Catholics hate and despise and called heretics and charge every imaginable perversion to since 250 A.D. until the time that Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the door of Witenburg - THE ANABAPTISTS.

Where is that history my dear doctor? Surely there is such a plethora of supporting documents written by such a remnant (according to you that has been around since 250 A.D.), that you can actually defend said history with ease. Let's see the proof.

Yes, if we believe the Roman monk historians they were a terrible heretical people who always opposed Rome in a consistent succession since 250 A.D. under a variety of names but all called "Anabaptists" by these Roman monk historians.

I hate to tell you this (well, not really) but those monks are the ones who preserved most of what we know about math, science, the arts, and scripture until this day.

The Roman monks tell us that these "anabaptists" consistenly called Rome the Great Whore and the Pope the Antichrist and consistently claimed themselves as the true apostolic churches with the keys of the kingdom.

Guess what? That is what I am - an "Anabaptist." Now, that you know that , you can take up the trade of your Roman Monkism historians and continue to attribute trash to our history.

There is no evidence that any “Baptistic churches” ever existed before the Reformation, but that, it is claimed, is because the Catholic Church destroyed all the evidence as they chased the Anabaptists to the ends of the earth.

The groups that you must claim as your forefathers (baptistic) include the following:

Albigenses
Cathari
Paulicians
Arnoldists
Henricians
Waldenses and more.

Now, let's examine the beliefs of these groups to see how the "Baptistic movement" evolved.

The Cathari and Albigenses taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell. Since the Catholic Church took the New Testament literally, the Church was viewed as corrupted and doing the work of the devil.

The Paulicians, similarly believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics. Other groups rejected the government of the Catholic Church but not her dogma.

Many of these groups believed in the Real Presence, the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin, regenerational baptism and the rest of Catholic dogma.

The Waldenses, started by Peter Waldo (c. 1150−1218) are an example of a group of Baptist successionists would consider baptistic, maintaining “Baptist churches” in the midst of persecution during the medieval period. The Waldenses, for the most part, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few.

That's quite an impressive lineage there, doc. I for one, wouldn't claim any kind of connection to those heritics. But, hey - go for it.

Baptist Successionism is simply ludicrous on its face.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

Now, let's examine the beliefs of these groups to see how the "Baptistic movement" evolved.
Peace!

First, it is from the Catholic point of view that we are reading YOUR version of history through rose-colored eyes.
Second, the Catholic-revisionist history have attributed, and falsely so, all kinds of heresies to the groups that you have mentioned, heresies that were never believed by these people in the first place.
Third, when the RCC writes the history books, we know that it is inaccurate concerning the enemies that they massacred and tried to wipe off the face of this earth, as they tried to do to the Albigenses. An entire Crusade was devoted just to them. Imagine, Innocent III, so fearful about some God-fearing men and women that he had to try and exterminate them. That is about as Christlike a model of Christianity as one can show to the world, isn't it?
Fourth, even Cardinal Hosius admits that the Waldenses existed from the time of the Apostles onward.

 

[DHK]

Well, "brain" would be the operative word there, DHK.

Peace!

If you would use yours and do some research on this subject you would find that what I am saying is true. I can document it through Catholic literature that I have that was printed thirty years ago or more.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

First, it is from the Catholic point of view that we are reading YOUR version of history through rose-colored eyes.
Second, the Catholic-revisionist history have attributed, and falsely so, all kinds of heresies to the groups that you have mentioned, heresies that were never believed by these people in the first place.
Third, when the RCC writes the history books, we know that it is inaccurate concerning the enemies that they massacred and tried to wipe off the face of this earth, as they tried to do to the Albigenses. An entire Crusade was devoted just to them. Imagine, Innocent III, so fearful about some God-fearing men and women that he had to try and exterminate them. That is about as Christlike a model of Christianity as one can show to the world, isn't it?
Fourth, even Cardinal Hosius admits that the Waldenses existed from the time of the Apostles onward.

I love the Waldenses. Have a history of them by Peter Felix, mentioned and use by J.A. Wylie in his History of Protestantism.

 

[BillySunday1935]

First, it is from the Catholic point of view that we are reading YOUR version of history through rose-colored eyes.

Well show me some history to the contrary.

Second, the Catholic-revisionist history have attributed, and falsely so, all kinds of heresies to the groups that you have mentioned, heresies that were never believed by these people in the first place.

What I provided you with is accurate from the historical record. If you can prove the contrary, then I am willing to take a look at it.

Third, when the RCC writes the history books, we know that it is inaccurate concerning the enemies that they massacred and tried to wipe off the face of this earth, as they tried to do to the Albigenses. An entire Crusade was devoted just to them. Imagine, Innocent III, so fearful about some God-fearing men and women that he had to try and exterminate them. That is about as Christlike a model of Christianity as one can show to the world, isn't it?

Perhaps, but that's just a dodge around providing me with some actual evidence.

Fourth, even Cardinal Hosius admits that the Waldenses existed from the time of the Apostles onward.

What? Well of course heresies existed all the way back to apostolic times. Who do you think declared groups as heretics.

Here is what Cardinal Hosius actually said:
Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus
Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:
For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read [in the edict of the other prince], were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He [the other prince] wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing. (by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin)

So, Cardinal Hosius made no such claim - he was only repeating what was written in the edict of some "other prince." We poor Baptists have been misled for hundreds of years on this one.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

Here is what Cardinal Hosius actually said:
Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus
Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote:
For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read [in the edict of the other prince], were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He [the other prince] wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing. (by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin)

So, Cardinal Hosius made no such claim - he was only repeating what was written in the edict of some "other prince." We poor Baptists have been misled for hundreds of years on this one.

Peace!

It looks like he was declaring the heresies of the Anabaptists (and thus the Anabaptists) existed from 1200 years previous to his time, which was the time of the Apostles. Of course the "heresies" of the Anabaptists are the same "heresies" in the eyes of the RCC which we believe to this day: sola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo Gloria. All five of these pillars were condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[lori4dogs]

I love the Waldenses. Have a history of them by Peter Felix, mentioned and use by J.A. Wylie in his History of Protestantism.

I love the Waldenses too!!

WALDO ("Valdesius") CONFESSION OF FAITH : Catholic to the Core

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....

"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.

"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....

"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.

"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.

"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.

"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith." [12]

In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. [13] The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm

 

[BillySunday1935]

It looks like he was declaring the heresies of the Anabaptists (and thus the Anabaptists) existed from 1200 years previous to his time, which was the time of the Apostles. Of course the "heresies" of the Anabaptists are the same "heresies" in the eyes of the RCC which we believe to this day:

Oh lordy... Just look at the grammatical structure. He made no such claim. If this is all you can point to then you have a real problem there DHK.

sola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo Gloria. All five of these pillars were condemned by the Catholic Church.

That is because, they are mutually exclusive - by the very nature of their names (I.e. sola).

Peace!.

 

[DHK]

sola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo Gloria. All five of these pillars were condemned by the Catholic Church.

That is because, they are mutually exclusive - by the very nature of their names (I.e. sola).

"That is because they are mutually exclusive"
That is like saying that the three persons of the trinity are mutually exclusive.

They all work together and yet are one God.



All five are taught in the Bible and work together in the plan of salvation, in like manner.

Without the Bible as our sole authority we would have no idea what salvation is. The RCC doesn't have a clue how to be saved. They think that it is by works, through the RCC, by baptism, through sacraments, all of which are wrong and heretical. Thus sola scriptura is necessary. ECF cannot be our guide, neither Tradition, neither man. It is sola scriptura.



Sola fide is taught through and through both OT and NT.

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
There is no clearer statement of sola fide than that. You cannot add anything to salvation. It must be by faith alone.



Sola gratia is by grace alone is so because the Bible teaches it to be so. By denying it one denies the Bible. Even the most elementary student of the RCC will admit this is true.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved


Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--Grace and works cannot co-exist together. It is either by grace or by works; it cannot be both. That is the teaching of this verse.

--The teaching of Ephesians 2:8,9 is that we are saved by God's grace alone, through man's faith alone, in Christ alone. This doesn't contradict anything except the heresies of the RCC.



Solus Christus--means through Christ alone. Do you actually contradict this? What else would it be? Would you include Allah? Is salvation also through Allah? by Brahma? And the various other Hindu deities? In not through Christ alone, are you even saved?

What does this verse mean then?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--He is the ONLY way. There is no other.



Soli Deo Gloria--means "glory to God alone." The RCC has trouble with this also because the glory they give is to Mary and other dead "saints." All glory is not directed to God alone. And if it isn't it is heresy. You would think that this would be such a straight forward doctrine of Scripture, but no, the RCC has to mess this one up as well. They give glory to mere mortals. Glory belongs to God alone.



These are doctrines taught in the Bible, none of which contradict each other; just as none of the persons of the trinity contradict each other.

 

[BillySunday1935]

"That is because they are mutually exclusive"
That is like saying that the three persons of the trinity are mutually exclusive.

They all work together and yet are one God.

No - it's like you saying that - I never did.

All five are taught in the Bible and work together in the plan of salvation, in like manner.

Without the Bible as our sole authority we would have no idea what salvation is. The RCC doesn't have a clue how to be saved. They think that it is by works, through the RCC, by baptism, through sacraments, all of which are wrong and heretical. Thus sola scriptura is necessary. ECF cannot be our guide, neither Tradition, neither man. It is sola scriptura.



Sola fide is taught through and through both OT and NT.

Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
There is no clearer statement of sola fide than that. You cannot add anything to salvation. It must be by faith alone.



Sola gratia is by grace alone is so because the Bible teaches it to be so. By denying it one denies the Bible. Even the most elementary student of the RCC will admit this is true.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved


Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--Grace and works cannot co-exist together. It is either by grace or by works; it cannot be both. That is the teaching of this verse.

--The teaching of Ephesians 2:8,9 is that we are saved by God's grace alone, through man's faith alone, in Christ alone. This doesn't contradict anything except the heresies of the RCC.



Solus Christus--means through Christ alone. Do you actually contradict this? What else would it be? Would you include Allah? Is salvation also through Allah? by Brahma? And the various other Hindu deities? In not through Christ alone, are you even saved?

What does this verse mean then?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--He is the ONLY way. There is no other.



Soli Deo Gloria--means "glory to God alone." The RCC has trouble with this also because the glory they give is to Mary and other dead "saints." All glory is not directed to God alone. And if it isn't it is heresy. You would think that this would be such a straight forward doctrine of Scripture, but no, the RCC has to mess this one up as well. They give glory to mere mortals. Glory belongs to God alone.



These are doctrines taught in the Bible, none of which contradict each other; just as none of the persons of the trinity contradict each other.

Just look at the definition of the word "sola" - unique, by itself, alone. Hence you cannot have more than one regarding salvation. It's simply a grammatical issue.

Personally, I don't have a problem with grace working through faith - but that is precluded by that one single word... Sola.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

You responded exactly as I predicted. One very good historical example that the Roman monkish historians perverted their enemies is what you say about the Paulicians as being Manicheans or dualists. We do have a preserved writing from them called "The key of truth" and they repudiate the charge of being dualists or Manicheans. However, even with their own written denial Rome continues to make the same false charge then and now.


Where is the evidence? It has been gathered from the writings of the Catholic Monks themselves as they were the cheif complainers.
There are literally scores of protestant historians who have research the subject and have written books providing the evidence.

You are right that the Roman monks painted their avowed enemies in the worst light possible. However, many times they contradicted themselves as some Roman inquisitors simply told the truth because the truth demonstrated they were not Catholic in doctrine or practice nor what other monkish revisionists of history had painted them.

Of course you don't like to hear about this and your more than willing to believe the monkish revisionists even when they contradict each other about the same groups.

Historians who have looked at the evidence objectively reject the idea that Waldo started the Waldenses as there were groups existing beleiving the very same thing when Waldo was born. There is a historical debate over the meaning of "waldenses" as many believe it means people of the valley rather than from the term "waldo."

Where is that history my dear doctor? Surely there is such a plethora of supporting documents written by such a remnant (according to you that has been around since 250 A.D.), that you can actually defend said history with ease. Let's see the proof.



I hate to tell you this (well, not really) but those monks are the ones who preserved most of what we know about math, science, the arts, and scripture until this day.




There is no evidence that any “Baptistic churches” ever existed before the Reformation, but that, it is claimed, is because the Catholic Church destroyed all the evidence as they chased the Anabaptists to the ends of the earth.

The groups that you must claim as your forefathers (baptistic) include the following:

Albigenses
Cathari
Paulicians
Arnoldists
Henricians
Waldenses and more.

Now, let's examine the beliefs of these groups to see how the "Baptistic movement" evolved.

The Cathari and Albigenses taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell. Since the Catholic Church took the New Testament literally, the Church was viewed as corrupted and doing the work of the devil.

The Paulicians, similarly believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics. Other groups rejected the government of the Catholic Church but not her dogma.

Many of these groups believed in the Real Presence, the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin, regenerational baptism and the rest of Catholic dogma.

The Waldenses, started by Peter Waldo (c. 1150−1218) are an example of a group of Baptist successionists would consider baptistic, maintaining “Baptist churches” in the midst of persecution during the medieval period. The Waldenses, for the most part, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few.

That's quite an impressive lineage there, doc. I for one, wouldn't claim any kind of connection to those heritics. But, hey - go for it.

Baptist Successionism is simply ludicrous on its face.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

No - it's like you saying that - I never did.



Just look at the definition of the word "sola" - unique, by itself, alone. Hence you cannot have more than one regarding salvation. It's simply a grammatical issue.

Personally, I don't have a problem with grace working through faith - but that is precluded by that one single word... Sola.

Peace!

You have a problem then. That one word (in the English language), "only" is used 258 times. You have 258 contradictions, perhaps??