• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LOL.....Are you actually telling the truth Brother Z.....calling us all Hypocrites? :tongue3:

As if they didn't all already know.....Oh your too much....well done! LOL:thumbsup:
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
how do you believe Jesus Christ, a Jew mind you, worshiped during his ministry?...where do you see Christ correcting His Disciples to throw away their liturgical form of worship they were accustomed to being Jews themselves and adopting this "new way of life and worship"?

Where AiC, show the class...

The only place in Holy Scripture we see, not really a "change", but an addition to the style of "worship" was at the Last Supper...here we still see a liturgical form of worship the Apostles were familiar with it...but Christ introduces the Eucharist...and from there we read in the Books, Letters and Epistles of the NT how the Eucharist is incorporated into worship.

show the class from early Church history that your way of worship today (in a non-liturgical form) is the "new direction" you speak of God starting?

we've had practicing Jews in our community visit our Orthodox Divine Liturgy and comment how closely our Liturgy is to theirs up until the Bread and Wine are brought to the altar and the Eucharistic liturgical form of the NT takes over.
Just like the supposed "apostolic oral tradition" of the catholics, much of the Jewish "liturgy" had added a supposed "Mosaic oral tradition", so just because both are similar doesn't mean that is what God commanded.
Jesus did criticize the traditions, but His mission and that of the apostles would not be to stomp out all extrabibnlical traditions, so long as they weren't contrary to the Gospel (like sacrafices).
Hence, Jewish Christians continued to celebrate the Passover (and now the communion) on Nisan 14th (Quartodeciman), rather than on a Sunday, and many still kept the sabbath, dietary laws, etc (and those weren't even "oral traditions", but rather the Torah!). Yet catholic/orthodox do not advocate those practices.

The NT was more about liberty, than simply rehashing the Old Covenent by simply changing days and forms.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
All people who love the Bible and make scripture a serious study do this, or at least they think they do. But in reality they know in advance what their beliefs are and pick those passages that agree with their beliefs. Then they take the conradictory passages and subordinate them, explain them away, contextualize them or do whatever is necessary to make them say something other than what they really do say. You do it, I do it, everyone does it although few are willing to admit it.

I do agree with you on this, that there is but one gospel of salvation. However, it is a lot more inclusive than most of us think it is.

You simply confirmed what I said. It is one thing to say you do it but another thing in doing it. The job of the exegete is to point out where self and others fail to do it.

I presented a contextual based study on Romans 3:27 and the principle or "law" of faith versus the principle or "law" of works. The simplicity of the gospel hinges upon this contrast. So far none have ventured to demonstrate by immediate context where I have erred. If I have rightly exegeted this text in its immediate context then justification by faith, which is the essential heart of the gospel is very simplex and very exclusive instead of inclusive.

The study is still on the forum entitled "Justification without works" and it has had 83 hits and yet not one person has attempted to respond to it or been able to point out where I erred as an exegete of this text. I challenge you to read and consider it and if you are able to point out where I erred in my exegesis according to the immediate context - please do!
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, but the one thing you haven't yet accepted is that you are as capable of error as the next man in reaching your interpretation. So, why should we accept you interpretation as being true?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, but the one thing you haven't yet accepted is that you are as capable of error as the next man in reaching your interpretation. So, why should we accept you interpretation as being true?

I just think people prefer not to talk to him for fear of being called a heretic, an apostate, a reprobate, stupid or any of the other myriad insults in his bag of tricks....that simple
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
Yes, but the one thing you haven't yet accepted is that you are as capable of error as the next man in reaching your interpretation. So, why should we accept you interpretation as being true?

I didn't ask you to accept it. I asked you to point out good contextual reasons for not accepting it. Isn't that the job of an exegete if the truth of the context is the real goal? To assume that God did not design and arrange the wording of the text and context by inspiration to reveal intended truth is to simply place the Bible on the scrap heap of gnosticism.

My article is there to be examined. I tried to present my case in an orderly and logical fashion in order that it can be easily grasped without confusion. I only ask the courtesy of examination and rebuttal according to the contextual facts that can be pointed out in that text and context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr. Walter

New Member
I just think people prefer not to talk to him for fear of being called a heretic, an apostate, a reprobate, stupid or any of the other myriad insults in his bag of tricks....that simple

There is a big difference in approaching someones post with the purpose to intentionally tear it apart rather than objective examination of the data to see if it honestly represents the truth.

Those who take the former approach have no interest in the truth but in only defending their own ego and pride and promoting error - they are heretics in the truest sense of the word. Those who take the latter approach and point out legitimate problems are simply honest students of the scripture who point out and wish to discuss real problems with a position/interpretation taken on a specific text.

These two approaches are readily discernible and the attitudes projected are easily discernable. It is easy to tell who it is that enters a discussion just wanting to fight and one who enters a discussion with intent to share the truth and point out errors that prevent the truth from being seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is a big difference in approaching someones post with the purpose to intentionally tear it apart rather than objective examination of the data to see if it honestly represents the truth.

Those who take the former approach have no interest in the truth but in only defending their own ego and pride and promoting error - they are heretics in the truest sense of the word. Those who take the latter approach and point out legitimate problems are simply honest students of the scripture who point out and wish to discuss real problems with a position/interpretation taken on a specific text.

These two approaches are readily discernible and the attitudes projected are easily discernible. It is easy to tell who it is that enters a discussion just wanting to fight and one who enters a discussion with intent to share the truth and point out errors that prevent the truth from being seen.

Hmmmm, perceptive.... remember always to keep the guard up & look them straight in the eye. Anything else can be disastrous.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
Further Clarification of my previous post

The following is a revision of the post I referred to you to. It is revised for clarity's sake:

The issue between justification by works versus by faith is dealt with by Paul in a very technical manner in Romans 3:24-5:2 but in the issue of the Law of Moses as opposed to works is specifically dealth with in Romans 3:27-28.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


There are several particulars that must be noted in this very technical and efficient treatise by Paul.



1. There is a question - "Where is boasting then?

This question is in response to the immediate preceding verses (vv. 23-26) where the problem (v. 23) and the provision for that problem is provided by God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ (vv. 24-26). In this provision there is absolutely nothing provided by the sinner to resolve the problem and that is precisely why it is introduced by the words I "freely by grace." The only involvement by the sinner in this provision is receiving it by faith as the provision is made the object of their faith:

"through faith IN his blood,"
"believeth IN Jesus."

Hence, their faith plays no part, provides no provision but simply acts as a receiver of what God has providey “freely by grace.” In direct contrast "faithfulness" is what you do for God but justifying faith is receiving what God did for you. Faith that justifies is faith that is “in” the right provision or object - the shed "blood" and Person of "Jesus."

Therefore, If God provides everthing in Christ without your help then the question that natural and directly follows is "Where is boasting then?" How can the receiver of this provision by faith boast when it is “freely by grace.”



2. Paul introduces the use of the term "law" in verse 27 in a general sense.

He introduces it in the sense of a PRINCIPLE in regard to this direct question. The question is "where is boasting then?" in the act of justification described in verses 24-26? What “law” is consistent with something “freely by grace” or with something you cannot boast in? Would the principle of “works” or the principle of “faith” exclude boasting??

By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

He did not say “the law of Moses” or “the law of God” but used the word “law” to equally describe “works” and “faith” as opposing principles in regard to boasting. Which one by principle excludes boasting? Which way of justification by principle excludes boasting? There is no room of syncretism here as they are placed in opposition to each other as principles or laws.



3. Paul does not leave this question without an answer but provides the answer:

of works? Nay: but by the law of faith

Justification by the principle of works provides for boasting as such texts as Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 11:6 clearly indicate. The principle of works for justification is clearly spelled out in Romans 2:6 “according to their deeds.” If justification is based ultimately “according to” their deeds rather than “freely by his grace” according to what Christ provided as represented “in his blood” than there is room to include what you do and thus room for boasting. However, if justification is by the principle of faith as described in Romans 3:24-26 where it is not more the receiver of God’s provision and simply embraces that provision as the object of faith then there is no room for boasting at all.



4. Hence, you are either justified by the principle of FAITH ALONE or you are justified by the principle of WORKS ALONE as they are placed in opposition to each other rather.

The principle of FAITH ALONE not only denies one can be justified by the law of Moses but denies any law that operates by the principle of works can be defined as justification by faith.

Romans 3:24-26 is justification "freely by grace" "through faith in his blood" believing "in Jesus" and therefore it is justification by the PRINCIPLE of faith without works:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.



5. Therefore, by this PRINCIPLE of justification the ground is made level for both Jews and Gentiles under One God because the law of Moses is by PRINCIPLE justification by works:

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.


Since, the Law of Moses operates by the principle of works as defined by the law of Moses then it would exclude the Gentiles who do not have the law for justification by the principle of works. However, if the provision of Christ is the basis for justification by the principle of faith which merely receives it as the object of faith, then the Gentiles are included with the Jews on an equal basis for justification that focuses on Christ and His provision rather upon you and your works. Again, that principle of justification excludes “works” – your works – while including Christ’s works in your behalf “freely by his grace.”


6. Justification by faith without works does not invalidate the Law of God whether written upon stones (Rom. 2:12-13) or upon the conscience of man (Rom. 2:14-15) but is the ONLY WAY TO validate it.

In regard to the principle of “works” for justification, Paul has already proven that all men have failed and come short on the basis of their works – they have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and sin cannot justify anyone before God.

God must be just in justifying sinners and there is no other way for God to be just and the justifyer of sinners other than on the basis of the principle of faith in the provision of Christ as the basis for satisfying (propitiation) all of God’s demands against sin and entrance into heaven. By faith the sinner receives the substitutionary Person and work of Christ to have satisfied all of God’s just demands against him and God imputes it to his account.


26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Christ acted in behalf of the believing sinner and the believer received it "freely by grace" through the principle of faith. Hence, they are justified by faith without works.


7. Now, the same question "where is boasting then" is applied to Abraham:

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God
.

The word "glory" represents the very exact same word translated "boasting" in Romans 3:27. Since the prinicple of justification by "works" provides boasting, Paul proceeds in a very systematic way to prove that Abraham was justified "WITHOUT WORKS" of any kind coming from His person but was justified by the works coming from the Person of Christ through IMPUTATION.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,


1. Justified by faith without works by grace (imputation by faith) - vv. 3-5
2. Remision of sins without divine ordinances - vv. 6-12
3. Justified by the principle of faith not by the principle of law - vv. 13-15
4. Justified by faith without any kind of personal performance - vv. 16-21
5. Justified by faith as a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel - 4:22-5:2
CONCLUSION:

Every gospel of justification by is characterized by the priniciple of "works" is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9), a false gospel, as the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the doctrine of justification. Only justification by the principle of "faith" without works excludes all boasting by men. Only the doctrine of justification correctly declares all men have already come short of God's standard of righteousness and Christ alone has satisifed and provided all that is necessary to justify sinners.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Yes, but the one thing you haven't yet accepted is that you are as capable of error as the next man in reaching your interpretation. So, why should we accept you interpretation as being true?
Why shouldn't you? Have you demonstrated or given any valid reasons why his interpretation (on Isaiah 8:20) is invalid. If not, then accept it and stop being the armchair critic with nothing but complaints and criticism to offer.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
No. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Your post here puts the COC in cult-like status. They believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation nullifying what you just stated. Their gospel (which Paul terms accursed) is a message of works. It is directly opposed to the message of grace and faith in Eph.2:8,9.

Whether the COC study their Bibles or not, is not the question or is not even relevant. They can study their Bibles 24/7. But as long as they believe that salvation is by works and not by grace through faith, they remain a cult, and it is impossible to be saved through that message. Baptism does not save; it gets a person wet, but has no salvic power.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Because it is ahistorical and an opinion of man.
Are you speaking of Isaiah 8:20?

Or are you speaking of your own inability to expound the passage in which Isaiah 8:20 is found? Are you stating that the Book of Isaiah is "ahistorical"? What is it?
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are you speaking of Isaiah 8:20?

Or are you speaking of your own inability to expound the passage in which Isaiah 8:20 is found? Are you stating that the Book of Isaiah is "ahistorical"? What is it?
I'm saying that Dr Walter's exegesis of it is ahistorical
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top