Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, it would seem that the good "Doctor" Walter is preaching a gospel of works if one must have a correct theological understanding in order to be saved.

What you are failing to discern is the gospel I preach versus my defense of the gospel I preach. The gospel is simple - trust in Christ as God's all sufficient provision for salvation. The defense of that simplicity is more complex because the arguments against it are more complex.

I would suggest it is more difficult to defend justification without works then it is to believe in justification without works. Both of you are confusing the two and that is why you are making the false charge that I preach a gospel of works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I got to go because I am late for classes. So I am not ignoring you if I don't respond. I am simply not on line

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't care what you define as justification or sanctification

Well, here you speak the truth. In fact, you care less what I actually believe but find it sufficient to hold views of me whether or not I hold that perspective. I've told you what I believe about justification and yet you say "I don't care" which means discussion with you is pointless since you find it sufficient to accuse me of Catholicism whether or not I believe it! Don't you find that ludicrious? Well, I do. But at least now we know that even if I go to a baptist church and hold to the westminster confession of faith. You could care less. You have to accuse me no matter what. Show your position.

That is a laugh! Nobody, and I mean Nobody has any doubts where I stand on anything I say.

Just because they don't doubt where you stand doesn't mean they don't have an issue with your or your stance.

I don't hide behind deceptive arguments or conceal my views on any subject. Your the one who is creating this confusion not I. Your using the Devil's line of defense. When his deceptions are exposed he simply attacks the one exposing them rather than deal with his own problems that he is the author.

Yes the age old argument the devil is under the bed! Ha! I've explained my actual position on several topics you just need to look them up. I've told you about my salvation experience, my views on justification , my views on the church, etc and that is just this thread. There are many others as well.

Finally! Confession is good for the soul. People who are like minded with me in regard to the Biblical doctrine of justification as a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel have no other recourse but to agree with the Biblical condemnation of those who deny that essential and fundemental truth of the one and only gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

All that means is birds of a feather. However, the deeper point that I've made on this thread really isn't about justification but questioning your mindless acceptance that "if" we are sola scriptura we "would all come to the same understanding about key issues of the Christian faith" which I actually disproved. It is you who must insist on your view of "justification". My view is spelled out and to be honest I don't really see that much of a difference with your view. But you wouldn't know that because you "don't care" what I actually believe. I've, in your mind, have become the good "bad guy" without really understanding me.

That surely does not represent my view!!!!! I don't believe you have to know anything about the Trinity to be saved.

I ensured the statement about the trinity because I purposely wanted to leave out Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, and such groups. I think its encumbant upon the evangelist that bring people to the lord teach enough about God that new converts understand at least the jist of the Trinity.

I don't believe you have to be a theologion to be saved.

Neither do I but your the one sending people to hell for not holding to your view of justification whether a one time event or progressive. Not I. I'm just saying people should have the right idea about God. Thus he is one God not many and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one God with the Father. That is all and even if you don't understand that perfectly I won't hold it against you because its a tough one.

I believe that you simply have to believe in what God reveals to you through the gospel to be saved - later you can be taught other things (Mt. 28:20).

hey Marcion agrees with you! Go figure.

That is precisely why I said a person can be saved regardless of what denomination he might belong to.

No you haven't you've made certain churches fall under your "another gospel" and are damned caveat. not me you.

Simple faith in Christ as sufficient to satisfy God's wrath against you and meet your need as a sinner is all you need to know to be saved.

Simple except that if its another gospel in your mind from yours they are damned. And you've made it impossible for Catholics, Orthdox, Anglicans, Copts, Episcopals, Church of Christ, Dutch Reformed Calvinist, to be saved.

You are right, I do not believe that mere profession with religious practice and convictions or devout lives prove anything as man is naturally religious and devout to whatever he commits himself to (Mt. 7:22). Demeanor can be deceptive and the fruits of the Spirit can be counterfeited. However, the truth of the gospel does not change nor does it depend upon any externals whatsoever although it is manifested by such externals.

Are you saying you believe in a visible church? Your begining to sound Catholic!!! I believe the bible

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another

5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive

Your salvation is all about the house whereas Christ's salvation is all about the "foundation." There are houses built on both foundations - the sand foundation of justification by the principle of works and the foundation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You need to believe in the true gospel of Christ and you can keep your sympathies because I don't need them

.
Again, I don't believe in works save me but that I'm saved unto good works. Big difference. Unlilke you I emphasize grace. I am saved by Grace (alone) through faith in Christ (alone). My justification is more that as Luther mentioned it "poop (because his example was a bit more vulgar) covered in snow" I am righteous indeed and will be sanctified throughout my life if I am willing. However, you place it on justification rather than grace.
And though you don't need my sympathies they are still given.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What you are failing to discern is the gospel I preach versus my defense of the gospel I preach. The gospel is simple - trust in Christ as God's all sufficient provision for salvation. The defense of that simplicity is more complex because the arguments against it are more complex.

I would suggest it is more difficult to defend justification without works then it is to believe in justification without works. Both of you are confusing the two and that is why you are making the false charge that I preach a gospel of works.

And you attack me for confusing the matter!!!!! :laugh::laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

TS....Im supprised at you...you've heard of Free Baptist right?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS....Im supprised at you...you've heard of Free Baptist right?

Yes my bad, I got confussed between London and Westminster. Both are English. At least I know what I was talking about. Thanks for pointing it out! What am I to do? I guess I have to be Anglican now :tear:

 

[Dr. Walter]

.
Again, I don't believe in works save me but that I'm saved unto good works. Big difference. Unlilke you I emphasize grace. I am saved by Grace (alone) through faith in Christ (alone). My justification is more that as Luther mentioned it "poop (because his example was a bit more vulgar) covered in snow" I am righteous indeed and will be sanctified throughout my life if I am willing. However, you place it on justification rather than grace.
And though you don't need my sympathies they are still given.

You are one confused person. Anyone who argues for progressive justification, or repeated justifications is confusing justification with sanctification and that is not me. I have always made a clear demarcation between progressive sanctification and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I have no idea who you are reading but it certainly can't by my posts.

I have always on this forum advocated that works do not justify but we are justified by faith unto good works. I have always advocated that we are saved/justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

The gospel in essence is the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works and that is why Paul begins his defense of the gospel by saying those preach "another gospel" are accursed and then presents his defense of the true gospel by dealing with the doctrine of justification in Galatians 1-4. Do you see the connection between the gospel in Galaians 1:6-11 and the defense of the gospel in Galatians 3-4????

Do you see the connection between the true gospel and his defense of justificatio by grace through faith in Christ as opposed to "another gospel" and his condemnation of justification by works???????

I have noticed that no one wants to deal with my post on "Justification without works" which provides an exposition of Romans 3:24-5:2! That post is not a change of subject but zero's in on the bullseye of this whole debate.

 

[DHK]

I understood the point there was, if all of those details were omitted or lost or glossed over, or claimed to be false accusations of Rome, they could be painted as proto-Baptists as well on those points.

Also, would be hard to believe that all of this is just "Catholic misrepresentation":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism

Perhaps they had a point when they added this disclaimer:

It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2007.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are one confused person.

Not at all. I've been perfectly clear. The thing is you don't seem to be following the thread. The issue is whether there is a problem interpreting the gospel by scriptures alone. I've shown you how progressive justification may be arrived at through scripture alone and how it is very viable just by reading the text. To differentiate between Progressive Justification and a single point in time Justification can only be arrived at if you have a starting point beyond just scripture. Both can certainly be seen in scripture. Which is right. Well, it depends which glasses you're wearing in its determination. The truth is that you formulate your opinion beyond scripture text alone but by your experience and personal tradition. However, you being the way that you are, did two things. 1) made the argument about justification. 2) applied it personally to myself which was in appropriate from my discussion. And when I explained to you why that was so your argument was no one defends a position they don't agree with. To clarify matters I expressedly stated what it was that I believe. Confusion doesn't lie with me. But you who would 1) not stay on the subject matter 2) made it personal. And when making it personal you immediately attacked my person attaching to it something not held. Which you often do. The reason I believe this is the case because 1) you hold an elitist view of the Gospel in which everyone must hold your views on every subject regarding the gospel and refuse to see beyond your box. 2) You cannot hold to reasoned disagreement and therefore must attack a discenter from your position personally in an attempt to make yourself look better. Basically you place yourself in the position of those inquisitor priest of ages past and rather than look at facts immediately resort to accusation. One of the things I liked about England much more than the United States is that these type of debates could occur without resorting to accusations and anyone could hold any position. Which I quickly discovered when visiting Cambridge. Here most people dive off the deep end and let emotion be their fuel for debate. As it is with you.

 

[Eric B]

Perhaps they had a point when they added this disclaimer:

That tag is about the form (paragraph structure, etc) of the article, not its accuracy. There would be other tags used if that were the case.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You really can't be serious???? You really think you have explained away the only time aspect of Abraham's justification in Romans 4:9-12 and the summary conclusion of justification by the Aorist and two perfect tenses in Romans 5:1-2???:laugh::laugh:

I have posted my exposition of Romans 3:24-31 on nearly every current thread and then on a separate thread dedicated to it and you can't even deal with that exposition and we are to believe you have proven anything???:laugh:

The only thing you have proven is that you like to ridicule your opponents as much as possible and then hypocritically charge them with responding emotionally rather than factually. You have certainly not proven that one must go beyond scripture to establish that justification is a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel!!!!! If you have proven that, it is only in your own fertile imagination.

Genesis 15:6 is quoted by Paul in both Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6 and both are in a context where initial reception of the gospel is the application and summary conclusion (Rom. 4:23-5:1-2; Gal. 3:8).

I have responded to your eisgetical remarks by a clear and obvious exegetical response. Genesis 15:1-6 is nothing more than advanced progressive revelation of the very same essential gospel first promised Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 (which occurred previous to leaving Ur in Genesis 11). The "in thee" of Genesis 12 is the "from thy bowels" in Genesis 15 instead of his servant. Abraham did not REBLIEVE or was REJUSTIFIED or righteousness REIMPUTED in Genesis 15:6 but the initial promise was given progressive revelation to strengthen his initial faith in the initial promise given him in Ur of the Chaldees.

Even though Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 are provided by Paul in Romans 4 they are only provided to draw certain characteristics to further define initial justification by faith in the gospel rather than to define the time of justification. Only Romans 4:9-12 and 4:22-5:1 are given to define the TIME of justification and with two Aorist and two perfect tense verbs to prove it is a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel with continuing results.

Likewise in Galatians 3:1-11. The issue is the point of reception ("received") and Genesis 15:6 is brought in not to define the time of reception but the character of justification as imputation through faith whereas Gal. 3:8-11 defines the time of justification.
Genesis 15:6 can be likened to 1 John 5:13. John is not writing for the purpose that they REBLIEVE or be RESAVED but that their INITIAL faith be strengthened by further revelation provided by John in his epistle. This is precisely the same thing that Genesis 15:1-5 accomplishes. Abraham's initial completed action of justication by faith in the initial gospel is strengthened by a reaffirmation of the initial promise. The "in thee" of Genesis 12:1-3 is the same promise in Genesis 15:4 "he shall come forth out of thine own bowels." No different gospel (Gal. 3:8) no different promise - just reaffirmed. Abraham's initial faith in the initial gospel was simply reaffirmed and his faith further strengthened. Abraham's initial justification by faith is THE MODEL for all who believe (Romans 4:12) and thus the summary of Paul's doctrine of justificaiton in Romans 4:22-5:1-2 is not merely something peculiar to a selected portion of God's people but to all of God's people including Abraham the MODEL of justification by faith.

Your view contradicts the very summation that Paul gives for the very doctrine he is teaching and the very model of that doctrine he is using. You interpret Genesis 15:6 to directly contradict his model and summary conclusion whereas I interpret it in perfect harmony with his doctrine and summary conclusion.

Finally, if you are really serious with establishing the truth about justification you would have attempted to respond to my exposition on Romans 3:24-31 which I posted on several threads including a thread dedicated to it alone. Why? Because progressive justification by its very nature depends upon the principle of works rather than on faith in the finished work of Christ. Only my interpretation of Genesis 15:6 as the progressive results of a previous completed action fits justification by faith without works. Your position of repeated justifications or three different justifications demands some other basis than initial faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ but incoporates the principle of "works." If not, then what sense does REPEATED justifications make and what basis is there for such??? Can you deal with that exposition with the integrity of an honest expositor of Scripture????? I would hope you can.

Not at all. I've been perfectly clear. The thing is you don't seem to be following the thread. The issue is whether there is a problem interpreting the gospel by scriptures alone. I've shown you how progressive justification may be arrived at through scripture alone and how it is very viable just by reading the text. To differentiate between Progressive Justification and a single point in time Justification can only be arrived at if you have a starting point beyond just scripture. Both can certainly be seen in scripture. Which is right. Well, it depends which glasses you're wearing in its determination. The truth is that you formulate your opinion beyond scripture text alone but by your experience and personal tradition. However, you being the way that you are, did two things. 1) made the argument about justification. 2) applied it personally to myself which was in appropriate from my discussion. And when I explained to you why that was so your argument was no one defends a position they don't agree with. To clarify matters I expressedly stated what it was that I believe. Confusion doesn't lie with me. But you who would 1) not stay on the subject matter 2) made it personal. And when making it personal you immediately attacked my person attaching to it something not held. Which you often do. The reason I believe this is the case because 1) you hold an elitist view of the Gospel in which everyone must hold your views on every subject regarding the gospel and refuse to see beyond your box. 2) You cannot hold to reasoned disagreement and therefore must attack a discenter from your position personally in an attempt to make yourself look better. Basically you place yourself in the position of those inquisitor priest of ages past and rather than look at facts immediately resort to accusation. One of the things I liked about England much more than the United States is that these type of debates could occur without resorting to accusations and anyone could hold any position. Which I quickly discovered when visiting Cambridge. Here most people dive off the deep end and let emotion be their fuel for debate. As it is with you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You really can't be serious???? You really think you have explained away the only time aspect of Abraham's justification in Romans 4:9-12 and the summary conclusion of justification by the Aorist and two perfect tenses in Romans 5:1-2???:laugh::laugh:

two different passages Which means your forcing two different consepts. Romans 4

What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness

Specifically about Abraham and it uses the Aorist tense refering to Genesis 15. Your quote romans 5

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

is speaking about already born again believers not abraham. You are taking the passages out of the context to make your point. Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15 believers are justified by faith the same way and Paul is talking to believers in Romans 5 about their justification. You have not shown by using chapter 5 that Paul meant Abraham in Genesis 12. That is just nonsense and a poor attempt on your part.

I

have posted my exposition of Romans 3:24-31 on nearly every current thread and then on a separate thread dedicated to it and you can't even deal with that exposition and we are to believe you have proven anything???:laugh:

you are making too many assumptions. And falsly glorifying yourself in the process. I haven't even read your thread on Romans 3:24-31 but I'm certain whether I disagree with you or not, I could give you a run for your money.

The only thing you have proven is that you like to ridicule your opponents as much as possible and then hypocritically charge them with responding emotionally rather than factually.

No, I've proven that the NT indicates 3 times at which Abraham is considered to have been justified at 3 different periods in his life. I've also proven that you haven't made an adiquate argument against it save to Falsly indicate Paul used the Perfect tense in Chapter 4 when he used the Aorist tense and then Use another passage entirely which wasn't discussing abraham but believers when he used the perfect tense. And I've proven that though I ridicule because I have a sense of humor you damn people to eternity in hell.

You have certainly not proven that one must go beyond scripture to establish that justification is a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel!!!!!

I absolutely have and its clear.

I have responded to your eisgetical remarks by a clear and obvious exegetical response

what is funny Is you falsly made an exegetical. Which has been my point all along. Everyone reads into scripture their views. Rather than just take the text as it is.

Finally, if you are really serious with establishing the truth about justification you would have attempted to respond to my exposition on Romans 3:24-31 which I posted on several threads including a thread dedicated to it alone.

If you want me to read your thread and comment on them fine. If you want me to challenge you that your view is wrong then elucidate which stance you want me to take and I will challenge you. Do you want me to challenge you with progressive justification? Or Justification contextualized to meet the comments and context of the section. Or How it plays in with the Law? Which one? I'll take anyone you wish.

Why? Because progressive justification by its very nature depends upon the principle of works rather than on faith in the finished work of Christ

thats not true and you know it. It's based on sanctification which is our obligation. You'll find that you have a narrow view of sanctification and a rather broad view of works. What you should see is that Faith doesn't negate sanctification.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

what is your thread title?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I haven't even read your thread on Romans 3:24-31 but I'm certain whether I disagree with you or not, I could give you a run for your money.

You have stated the real problem and that is why it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

You do not believe the Word of God is the final authority for faith and practice and that is another reason it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

Your comment that Romans 5:1-2 refers to those who are already believers is a total disconnect from the preceding context - Romans 4:22-25 which ties it to initial justification by faith in the gospel as the reason they have peace with God.

Your mind is totally shut to anything and everything that would expose your rationale as flawed. Your responses will be nothing more than ridicule and sarcasim regardless of the evidence. case closed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have stated the real problem and that is why it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

You do not believe the Word of God is the final authority for faith and practice and that is another reason it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

Your comment that Romans 5:1-2 refers to those who are already believers is a total disconnect from the preceding context - Romans 4:22-25 which ties it to initial justification by faith in the gospel as the reason they have peace with God.

Your mind is totally shut to anything and everything that would expose your rationale as flawed. Your responses will be nothing more than ridicule and sarcasim regardless of the evidence. case closed.

Aux contraire mon petit Pasteur. The fact that you are connecting romans 5 to Abraham when it connect to the believer is taking it out of context Both 4 and 5 refer to the believer. In 4 the believer is identified with Abraham. 5 does not have this identification thus 5 does not refer to Abraham's justification in Genesis 12 thus roman's 4 still stands as having Abraham justified in Genesis 15.
Votre Esprit est Ferme. C'est evident! Or your mind is closed its obvious.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Agnus Dei posted...

yes, we have an Epistle reading and a Gospel, which is governered by our Church Calendar...but don't let that fool you...we have plenty of OT literature within our Hymnography and Troparions, throughout our Divine Liturgy and Orthros or Matins (the service that leads into Divine Liturgy).

The Catholics and Orthodox need to dump these dead liturgical excersises in emptiness and start proclaiming the TRUE and SAVING Gospel of Jesus Christ... in power and in truth.


God have mercy on them and grant them the ability to discern light from darkness.

 

[DHK]

Aux contraire mon petit Pasteur. The fact that you are connecting romans 5 to Abraham when it connect to the believer is taking it out of context Both 4 and 5 refer to the believer. In 4 the believer is identified with Abraham. 5 does not have this identification thus 5 does not refer to Abraham's justification in Genesis 12 thus roman's 4 still stands as having Abraham justified in Genesis 15.
Votre Esprit est Ferme. C'est evident! Or your mind is closed its obvious.

The originals never had chapter divisions. They were put in there by the translators. So unless you are a KJVO chapters four and five are connected. An artificial chapter break by the translators doesn't take it out of context.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Furthermore chapter four is connected to chapter five by the conjunctive adverb "therefore."
As someone once said:
Whenever you see a "wherefore" or "therefore" look before to see why-for the "therefore" is there for.

The reason for stating Romans 5:1 are given in Romans chapter four. The reason that we are justified by faith and faith alone are given via illustration through Abraham, and also through David. Abraham is the primary illustration of one who is justified by faith and not of works. That is made plain in chapter four, and the conclusion drawn in 5:1 where that specific truth is summarized very well.

 

[Matt Black]

Agnus Dei posted...



The Catholics and Orthodox need to dump these dead liturgical excersises in emptiness

Given that they have been doing these 'dead liturgical exercises' since the time of the Apostles, why should they?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Treading a little close to the Anglicans I'm thinking. Just what do you consider dead if you make a statement like that. Perhaps some modern changes like putting a band behind the priest & alter is in order...hmmmm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The originals never had chapter divisions. They were put in there by the translators. So unless you are a KJVO chapters four and five are connected. An artificial chapter break by the translators doesn't take it out of context.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Furthermore chapter four is connected to chapter five by the conjunctive adverb "therefore."
As someone once said:
Whenever you see a "wherefore" or "therefore" look before to see why-for the "therefore" is there for.

The reason for stating Romans 5:1 are given in Romans chapter four. The reason that we are justified by faith and faith alone are given via illustration through Abraham, and also through David. Abraham is the primary illustration of one who is justified by faith and not of works. That is made plain in chapter four, and the conclusion drawn in 5:1 where that specific truth is summarized very well.

Taking out the inserted chapter seperations and artificial punctuation. We still see the context of those passages as 1) in Romans 5 Paul is refering to the faith of the believers he's writing to and 2) in chapter 4 He identifies the believers with Abraham. for a quick summery it goes like this. You are identified with abraham because he believed God (chapter 15 genesis) in the same manner are you justified. You have been justified by your faith. Its obvious this last part (chapter 5 of romans) is not speaking of Abraham but the believers themselves. thus the Perfect tense in chapter 5 is refering not to Abraham but the believers. Paul already referes to Abraham in Chapter 4 using the Aorist tense which indicates that is was in Chapter 15 which Abraham was justified. Never in either passage is the reader given an indication that abraham was justified in Genesis 12. You and Dr. Walters are forcing that into the passage not taking the text as it is.