False Christian Denominations

[steaver]

In Rev 14:6-7 when the first Angel proclaims to the world the Everlasting/Eternal Gospel - what are the actual "Words" he uses? (quote please).

"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!

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

Here is the gospel that Paul claimed to preach (or at least part of it)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the basis of justification in this statement of Paul?

WHO are the successful examples being justified in this statement?

ON what future day are they justified according to this text -- (quote please)?

In James' Gospel by what are the saints judged in the future?

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...

Steaver said --


Hi Bob, Let's begin from your opening statement...."Here is the gospel that Paul claimed to preach ( or at least part of it )"

" Part of it " is correct. Scripture is what interprets Scripture and " precept must be upon precept (Isaiah 28)" as we " study " to " rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)".

Question #1 ...."What is the basis of justification in this statement of Paul?"

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

This is a perfect example of how not to "study" and "rightly divide the word of truth", "precept upon precept". You have asked a question confining a response to " in this statement of Paul ".

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

Why so reluctant

In doing so you do not want any other Scriptures used to interpret this passage.

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.

Steaver said --
--obligatory rant deleted --

Now to answer with your rules of interpretation rather than the Bible's rules, one must answer that "doers of the law are those who will be justified according to this statement of Paul".

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.

Steaver said --
With your rules of interpretation I can also erroniously make Scripture show you that it is the "do gooders" that are given eternal life.

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.

Steaver said --

Romans 2:6
... "the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds : To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life (Ro 2:6)".

We could use passage after passage to prove just about any doctrine one can dream up.

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.

Steaver said
So the "cornered answer" would be that "those who do the law are those who will be justified".

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.

Steaver said --
But the true answer is found in the entire letters by Paul as we read on for the Biblical interpretation cannot be made confining oneself to a few lines of Scripture.

As you have already pointed out - this emphasis in Romans 2 is throughout the chapter - you quote vs 6 showing the SAME point made in Romans 11-16!

Surely you can see your own self typing.

Steaver - jumping out to Romans 3
Paul goes on to say...." by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight ".

I realize that you are much more "comfortable" with Romans 3 on the subject of justifation than you are with Romans 2 on justification.

But "fleeing Romans 2" and only quoting Romans 3 when it comes to the subject of the Gospel and Gospel-justification does not a kind of "exegesis" make for Romans 2.

Though I see why you think you "need" to do such a thing.

If I could encourage you not to be so skiddish with Romans 2 for a minute I think you will begin to see how BOTH the Romans 2 view of the ONE GOSPEL and justification is true AND the Romans 3 view of the ONE Gospel and justifcation is also true.

Steaver comes back to Romans 2 for a brief sec and says --
So why then does Paul state that the doers of the law will be justified?

Indeed and emphasize it by saying "ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL"?

You are on to the point - now if only you would be able to "see it".

(Stever leaps immediately back out of Romans 2 -- out to Galatians as he ranges for an answer for his own question about Romans 2 ...)

Steaver in Galatians --

Paul goes on to explain the purpose of the law. We must consider all of the letters written for our learning and understanding. To the "foolish" Galatians who wanted to incorporate the law back into their justification by faith, Paul writes in conclusion after explaining once again that one is justified by faith apart from the law...

After spending some time in Gal (Where he is much happier with what Paul is saying) - Steaver finally comes back to Paul in Romans 2..

STeaver back in Romans 2 again --
So what about "the doers of the law will be justified"? Can they be?

Well lets see - what did Paul say IN that chapter - WHO SUCCEEDED??

WHO are given as extreme-examples SHOWING the New Covenant principle of the LAW written on the heart with the result that they are APPROVED according to "Paul's Gospel" on that FUTURE DAY when God judges the secrets of all mankind through Christ?

Let us pay "close attention to the details"

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

So Paul not only TELLS us about BOTH the failing case AND the succeeding cases in Romans 2:2-10 he ALSO gives us the "extreme" example of Gentiles without scripture SUCCEEDING.

Paul does not say "THIS is a false-Gospel about how things WOULD work if people COULD obey God".

Rather Paul argues the case in Romans 2 "THIS IS ACCORDING to MY GOSPEL"!!

Steaver --

Problem is that NNE can keep the entire law and even one offense makes one guilty of the entire law! God said so.

That is true - but it is NOT the context for Romans 2 SINCE "another DETAIL" in Romans 2 is that it STARTS with the context of "REPENTANCE" and turning to God.

It does NOT have as its context "Perfect sinless beings that need no repentance".

It is IN the context of one who REPENTS and comes to God that we see the contrasts between rebellion and obedience presented in Romans 2.

Obviously.

Paul's succeding case in Romans 2 BEGINS with Repentance (vs 3-4) and goes EVEN to the GENTILE WITHOUT scripture who HAS the New Covenant feature of the LAw of God written on the HEART!

This is "Accoring to Paul's Gospel" because this IS THE PURE Gospel and as Romans 2 shows - it has SUCCEEDING cases listed.

After spending a lot of time NOT paying any attention to the "details" in Romans 2 -- Steaver comes back to it "for a sec" and dismisses the chapter by saying

Steaver
It is clear that Paul was making the point that if you want to be justified by the law then you must do the entire law perfectly!

However that is NOT the point that Paul makes in Romans 2 - the chapter that STARTS with the GOODNESS of God that LEADS us to REPENTANCE for our sins.

After spending a bit more time in Romans 3 while avoiding every detail listed here in Romans 2... Steaver summs up his "exegesis" of Romans 2 with ...

Steaver said
So your short answer doesn't work Bob. Those who feel they can be justified by the law, according to Paul, are cursed.

First of all - "my short answer" is not there at all... I DID NOT WRITE ROMANS 2!!

Your argument is with Paul and the DETAILS of Romans 2 you have refused to look at as your way of "exegeting" the chapter.

That ANY chapter in scripture could be "exegeted" by NOT mentioning it - is an idea I have never seen promoted before.

You are the first.

Paul said

Rom 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Steaver said

Steaver --

Doers of the law will only be found cursed at their judgment day

The "exact negation" of Paul's Word's in Romans 2 can not be missed here.

Steaver NEEDS that contradiction of scripture ONLY because in your fear of Romans 2 - you have avoided the infallibe truth it is teaching.

Having the avoided any time at all in Roamns 2-- Steaver summs up his review of Romans 2:13 AS IF he had looked into the chapter and found that Paul expanded on his point about those who are doers of the LAW BEING JUSTIFIED.

Steaveer
Paul makes that very clear. Paul thoroughly explains what he meant by "doers of the law will be justified".

I agree - Romans 2 is very clear. Wish you had looked at it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[BobRyan]

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 ...

Steaver said --

Same as above.

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

STeaver said --

Again, a disregard for God's commands to "study", "rightly divide"

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"

Steaver
First of all they are not justified as has been proven through Scripture above.

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.

The "future day" is a judgment day, but which one? You can only interpret this using other scripture.

"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.

Steaver
There is a judgment day for the believer of "deeds while done in the body"(Ro 14:10,2 Cor 5:10). This would not be the one, for these seek to be justified by the law and have not submitted themselves to the justification which is found only in Jesus Christ.

"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?"

Steaver --
Saints are judged by the "Law of Liberty". First, being called " saints " defines us as already "justified".

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

9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
11 For He who said, "" DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,'' also said, "" DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.'' Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

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?

Steaver said --
This law of Liberty flys in the face of those desiring to impose the letter of the law. The two clash and cannot coexist. This is why Paul admonished the Galatians for trying to mix the two. The law of liberty is defined by James as well as others as " thou shalt love thy nieghbor as thyself, ye do well "(2:8).

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)

Steaver said --
"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty".

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

 

[BobRyan]

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).

Steaver

Don't see any point to the topic of "doers of the law being justified".

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).

Steaver said --

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven". Matt 7

Don't see any point to the topic of "doers of the law being justified". Unless you want to suggest that the "will of the father" is defined in scripture as "do the law and be justified".

#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.

Steaver said --

There is only one gospel. Study of the entire Bible precept upon precept, rightly dividing the word of truth

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)...

Steaver

will reveal to any seeker that justification is freely given through faith alone in Jesus Christ, apart from the law.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus came to defeat the law and it's curse.

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.

Steaver said --
In fact Jesus upheld the law by delivering to it it's demands for justification. Jesus fullfilled the law for us that we may be justified freely through His work alone and not our own.

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!

Steaver said --

-- some obligatory rant deleted --

Just let it go and let Jesus be your Savior! Then you can do good works as you bring others into the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, your works will not survive the refiners fire and you will be left ashame that you did not " study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth ".

A good point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Christlifter]

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!

 

[steaver]

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

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!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by mioque:
gb93433
"In 1975 the RCC formed a scholarship committee and that helped them a lot. "
"
Never heard of this before. Do you have some more info?
I know of the struggle between Pius X and the L'ecole Biblique about scientific study of the Bible (which the school won in the end), but that's the first 2 decades of the XXth century.

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

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by steaver:
Does anybody here personally know anyone who had been "born again" and then became a Catholic? I just don't see born again Christians flocking into Catholic churches, but I do see conversions the other direction.

Likewise I don't see the born again becoming Mormons or JW's or SDA's. It seems that these groups grow almost solely through recruting the lost and through family birth rights (taught that way from a very young age).

I see it like this. Anyone who is born of God has the witness of truth in themselves. The witness speaks loud and clear that it is by grace ye are saved...and not of yourselves. Anything added to grace for justification is false and if you are born of God you would clearly know this from the newly created heart which Christ gave you. Therefore you would reject any teaching to the contrary.

God Bless!

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"

 

[violet]

You my find seat warmers leave but not
"born again christians" [/QB]

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

 

[tragic_pizza]

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...

 

[steaver]

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.

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!

 

[BobRyan]

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

Originally posted by steaver:

This is not quite true. Exegesis is not confined to "chapters".

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.

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

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.

Steaver said

You in return gave us your (exegexis of the actual chapter of Romans 2 not a "topic"). I believe you are in error as you do I. So where does that leave us?

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

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver said --
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.

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.

Steaver said --

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.

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.

Steaver said --
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.

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).

Steaver said

" 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)

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Originally posted by steaver:

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...

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

 

[violet]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.

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.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.

Originally posted by steaver:

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...

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.