is it ironic that a non christian

Yes, it does happen.

I've told the stories many times here of Fr. Joe McAuley, of Holy Angels in Philly, who taught the Gospel straight and clear and of the priests and nuns at St. Stephens', where I went to school as a kid, who did the same.

 

Massdak
"are you sure you are a Christian baptist?"
You mean, that you suspect Brian is a Mandean baptist?

 

BrianT, did you miss my post?

 

To be honest, I didn't think there would be much benefit in responding to it, because we'll just end up disagreeing. But here goes...

Are you sure? Then what's the problem? If Catholics say justification is not by faith alone, they get jumped on because you think they "deny biblical justification". Yet when James says the same thing, you say you "have no problem" with it.

Which statement are you referring to? When you said "The Christ they honor has no power to save"? I've never seen a Catholic teaching back this up as well.

No, what Catholics disagree with is that the imputed righteousness is "once imputed, always imputed".

How "false" does it have to be before grace is nullified? Who draws the line? Who has 100% perfect doctrine and perfect understanding, not a speck of "false" in their thinking? Not me, that's for sure. And I'm thankful my salvation is not based on my intellectual perfection regarding doctrine, but on God's grace.

Bottom line, just because Catholics have a slightly different view of "justification" than you do, does not mean they "deny biblical justification". It simply means they "deny Gunther's understanding of biblical justification". Nothing more. It doesn't even mean one (them) or the other (you) are "outside of true Christianity", it just means one of you doesn't have perfect understanding - but God's grace isn't dependent on that, so no worries.

 

Well, I could answer your questions directly, but instead I think I'll give you the same response to your questions as you have been giving to my questions. My response is within the following parenthesis:

( )

I agree. I want to get it straight. But you won't answer of my questions, nor provide any scripture to back up your assertions. I'm supposed to just forget about my questions? I'm supposed to just take your word for it? I don't even know you!

 

I am well aware of Gal 5. I have read it once or twice. In fact, I read it *before* asking you my questions.

Maybe *you* need to reread Gal 5, to better understand what it's saying. Here's a hint:

Gal 5:6 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith **which worketh** by love."

 

"why do you suppose paul was so upset with them merely adding circumcision with faith for salvation? if it was a minor thing why all the problem?"
Trust me Massdak, someone cutting into your manhood with a knife is not a minor issue!

In fact, 'this minor thing' prevented many conversions to Judaïsm across the Roman empire. Certain branches of the Jewish faith tried very hard to proselytize but made very little headway because of it.

 

So in other words you don't want to discuss my responses, nor the scriptures I mention. OK then.

I've already addressed this.

I've already addressed this too, using Gal 5 which you told me would answer all my questions. Instead, I see where Gal 5 says "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." That doesn't sound like cancelling out to me.

Right. Righteous does not come by works, or by the law. Faith is required. Without faith, works are useless. Without works, faith is dead.

Round and round and round we gooooo......

 

So in other words you don't want to discuss my responses, nor the scriptures I mention. OK then.

 

BrianT, I have wanted to discuss the issue but you won't respond.

 

I responded, my post is the second-last post on page 3. It's your turn. If I have unintentionally missed anything you want me to respond to, please let me know, as I thought I was caught up.

 

No, the troubling issue is that I have provided *scriptures* (not just opinion, mine or Catholic) that talk of faith + work, and you won't respond to them. I have even shown you where the scriptures *you* posted were out of context or not saying what you thought they were saying, and you change the subject.

Um, James 2. I didn't say faith without works is dead, James did. I'm just repeating it. You keep saying works added to faith nullifies grace, yet James says without works, the faith is worthless. So who do I believe, you or James?

I agree. But those works still justify (James says so), and thus they do not nullify grace.

In general, and as far as I understand what they teach, no (but I may be wrong in my understanding about what they teach). Neither do I think that "faith only" is a "false gospel". I am still sorting it out, thus my participation in this thread.

 

Indeed. I already realize I don't really fit the typical "fundamental Baptist" persona, even aside from this issue.

Don't get me started on "fundamental". That word seems to shift meaning depending who you talk to.

And what is my belief?

If you feel I am in error, please try. Please at least open your Bible to James 2. Please actually try responding to some of my comments.

The gospel is that God has provided a means, through Christ, to redeem men. I am basing my Christianity on the Bible.

Why do I have to answer your questions, but you never answer mine? Especially since you're the one that supposedly has all the answers.