Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

Rome's Contradictions

Rome clearly states that the Roman Catholic Church is the "mother" of all who believe:

168...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life.'

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother. 'We beleive the Church as the mother of our new birth...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition.

However, when they define faith they use Abraham as the MODEL provided by Scriptures

144 To obey (from the Ltin ob-audire, to 'hear or listen to') in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture..." (Ibid).


and yet NO CATHOLIC CHURCH existed when Abraham was justified by faith. No Mosaic law existed.

Yet it is clear that Abraham is the example set forth for ALL BELEIVERS in ALL AGES. If no church was necessary for faith with Abraham then no church is necessary today. Just as Abraham was justified BEFORE he received any sign or seal of justification so also are we justified by faith BEFORE receiving any sign or seal of justification (Rom. 4:11).

 

It is interesting that individual Catholics have the priviledge of disagreeing with official dogma of the church and yet claim to be presenting the authentic position of the church on salvation.

The Apostle Paul was dealing specifically with the doctrine of justification (not sanctification) by faith in contrast to the doctrine of justification by faith plus works (sanctification) when he classified that form of doctrine as "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9).

The Judiazers did not deny faith in Christ and that is why Paul could call what they believed a "gospel." Instead they simply repudiated the idea that faith in Christ was sufficient to COMPLETLEY justify a man before God but rather that COMPLETION must include works AFTER beleiving in Christ:

Gal. 3: 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

1. They had begun by "the HEARING of faith"
2. They now think they must be completed (perfected) by the "WORKS of the law"

Some attempt to avoid this pointedly condemnation by Paul by redefining "hearing" and "works."

However, "hearing" is something YOU RECEIVE but "works" are something YOU DO. Remember, this concerns the gospel and the gospel is something your HEAR according to what is PREACHED to you:

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Rome preaches a gospel that defines "grace" to be a mixture of faith and works." Rome repudiates the truth that faith WITHOUT WORKS justifies "THE UNGODLY"!

Instead they demand that there is no justification for THE UNGODLY but rather God only justifies THE GODLY and so justificaiton is the PROCESS whereby the UNGODLY becomes GODLY through good works which form works form the bais in judgement to justify them before God.

Hence, by redefining grace to include works and redefining justification to include sanctification they can say salvation cannot be merited but is based solely upon the provision of Jesus Christ as it is administerd by grace through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments.

Paul calls this very Catholic doctrine "another gospel" and therefore Rome is not a gospel church or a Bible church but an "accursed" church.

 

Faith precedes baptism

Rom. 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

In contrast, Rome teaches that both faith and regeneration are inseperable from baptism, not merely inseparable but both are obtained IN baptism.

The CCC is very carefully worded on this point. The admit that a candidate for baptism can be "enlighted" by the preaching of the Word previous to baptism but actual faith along with regeneration is imparted IN baptism and is inseparable with baptism as baptism is the "ENTRY" into the life of faith.


168[COLOR="darkred[I]"]...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life[/I].'[/COLOR] CCC

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

However, the Bible teaches the very opposite. Philip demanded faith in Christ PRIOR TO baptism. Indeed, he demand it as the prerequisite to baptize him. This is also seen clearly in the theif on the cross. Mere faith in Christ "without works" and without sacraments were all that was essential to actually save.

This is what Paul told the Philippian Jailor. The tenses are very instructive here as the Jailor used the present tense continous action verb "what shall I DO to be saved" or KEEP ON DOING?

The response of Paul and Silas was a AORIST TENSE verb completed action direction "beleive" and thou shalt BE SAVED. Again, confirming Philip's demand that fath in Christ, thus faith, preceded baptism.

 

Sacraments do more than SIGNIFY?

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, THE FAITHFUL are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul repudiates Rome's doctrine that signs "actually brings about in each newly person" what is signified!!! Paul says that circumcision was a "sign" and a "seal" of justification by faith. However, Paul says that Abraham already had justification LONG BEFORE he ever submitted to the "sign" of justification by faith - circumcision. Moreover, Paul claimed that justification by faith could be had with those who NEVER submit to any sign.


Jesus also denied that signs actual obtain in a person what they signify:

Luke 5:12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


QUESTION: Did the lepor believe BEFORE or WHEN he was cleansed? "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean...I will: be thou clean"

QUESTION: When was the Lepor actually cleansed of his leporsy? Instantly or when he offered a sacrifice "for thy cleansing"???

QUESTION: Was not the language of redemption used with the ceremony "for they cleansing" "for remission of sins") but did not mean that such cleansing took place in the administration of the ceremony!!!!!

QUESTION: Does not Jesus provide the real reason for ceremonial SYMBOLIC cleansing? "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM."

This is why Baptist teach that baptism and the Lord's Supper are SYMBOLS that do not convey any literal regeneration, cleansing much less faith but are rather visible TESTIMONIES of what God has ALREADY DONE prior to them in the believer.

The whole soteriology hinges upon Rome's doctrine of baptism, if it falls, so does the whole soteriology of Rome.

 

Misapplied layers in a pyramid of error?

Even though one quotes explicit and clear statements of Roman Dogma straight from their own Catechism non-Catholics are consistently accused of jerking statements out of context because they claim their dogma is built layer upon layer of definitions.

However, here is the real truth. What they are complaining about is the fact that you do not accept their layers of REINTERPRETATION of Biblical terms which they use to PROPERLY DEFINE their clear and explicit statements.

In other words, they demand that the non-catholic first ACCEPT their DEFINITIONS of Biblical terms and read then their explicit statements by what THEY MEAN rather than what the Bible means by the same terms.

If you don't define their terms the way they do, then you are accused of JERKING OUT OF CONTEXT, and PERVERTING what they MEAN by their clear and explicit stated dogma!

Hence they want to write the book of definition of Biblical terms and demand you abide by their definitions of biblical terms instead of using the Scriptural definition of those terms to critique their definitions and dogma based upon such definitions.


This is all smoke and mirrors to deceive the foolish into ignoring that the Bible defines its own terms and if Rome departs from Biblical definitons and thus "SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM."

However, the howl because you refuse to define their terms their way to justify their dogma. The old addage is, if you accept the foundations laid by your opponent then you will also have to accept the conclusions of your opponent because the former always leads to the latter. I refuse to accept their definitions. I don't jerk anything out of context but simply shine the light of God's Word on their abuse of definitions of Biblical terms.

 

From Principle to Personal

Another common problem when dealing with Roman Catholics and most cults is when they cannot defeat you by logic and reason they will resort to making attacks on your person.

I have made no attacks on any person. Indeed, I have not even addressed any person in the last several posts. I am afraid there are strong hints that it will not be long before my person will be the object of slanderous attacks.

 

Complex rather than the simple Gospel

The reason that Roman soteriology is so complex is because it is founded upon a distortion of covenant theology that mixes the OLD and NEW covenants into one covenant.

The New Testament reduces and classifies all previous covenants under only TWO covenants and those TWO are contrasted with each other and the TWO terms that highlight this contrast are "works" and "Grace."

The Mosaic Covenant was the epitomy of the works kind of covenant wherein the parties included both God and man. In this kind, or classification of covenant the weak link is ALWAYS man.

The Covenant of Grace is epitomy of grace wherein the parties include only the Three Person's of the Godhead with man being the object rather than the participant in view.

Rome has formulated a covenant it calls grace but which includes both God and Man and the object is justification by works.

Any covenant that attempts to mix grace and works with both God and Man being the responsible parties is simply another version of the Old Covenant or justification by the "works of the law."

The "simplicity" of the gospel is that it does not require a comprehensive understanding of all the covenants of the Bible but only calls for seeing yourself a sinner and Christ your all-sufficent Savior.

 

Personal attacks instead of Issues?

I assure the readers I don't have any Dr. degree. But why should this personal remark be even made? Have I made any personal remarks about anyone on this thread???? Have I boasted in any education that I might or might not have? Why does this have to be reduced to personal issues?

Have I stooped to the level of making remarks about a person on this thread.

Why not stay with Biblical ISSUES and DENOMINATIONAL DOGMA???? I have no desire to stoop to the level of making personal attacks up anyone.

 

The Old is obviously placed in contrast to the New. Why? Is not God the author of both? Certainly, but God's design is not the same for both.

The "new" Covenant is merely "new" in time and space in regard to the public confirmation by the shedding of blood. In reality the "new" covenant is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

The Old Covenant was not designed by God to justify anyone. It was designed to REVEAL THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN so that man saw the complete vanity of attempting be justified by their own good works. It was designed to CONDEMN them as sinners and give them no way out from under God's wrath as long as they sought to be justified before God by way of personal participation.

The New Covenant is designed by God to save His people (Mt. 1:21). God's provision for justification from sin is by the sole participation of the works and death of Jesus Christ alone received through faith. God's provision is to regenerate them by His Spirit and work in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure according to the measure of grace and faith given every believer to obtain the level of sanctification not to enter heaven but to live this life for the glory of God.

The saved man has no will power or ability to overcome indwelling sin (Rom. 7:14-25) but must "mortify the deeds of the flesh" by the power of the indwelling Spirit. The advancement in sanctification ultimately is the consequence of the measure of grace given every believer and so whatever maturity level that may be accomplished in life can only be attributed to God's grace. Justification is by grace. Sanctification is by grace. Glorification is by grace.

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

Why reduce this discussion to personal insults? Why even make personal remarks?