Protestantism's big justification lie

[DHK]

The video itself was backed by numerous passages in the bible.

I genuinely wanted to know whether or not it was biblically sound. If you're going to censor it for little legitimate reason then I'm going to deem you a despot and never going to visit this place again.

Muslims use Scripture, some of them know the Bible better than the average Christian. Wiccans often use the Bible in their chants directed toward Satan.
You cannot come on here and threaten me with "IF I can't do what I want (irrespective of the rules) I am going to pick up my marbles and leave. Well, perhaps your marbles are not worth much. I don't really care if you don't visit this place again. "One Baptism" will not be back again. He wanted his way irrespective of what the rules said. There is a back door. It is always open. You are welcome to leave. No one is forcing you to stay.

 

[Croyant]

Ok, here is the thing, I honestly didn't know or see it was a rule to begin with. And yes that's just who I am, I don't believe it is good to restrict things that can be talked about.

I come from a Catholic background, and I had wished to ascertain which of the Catholic or protestant doctrine was the right one.

If I'm not allowed to show what these doctrines are to begin with then it is very hard to progress from one state to the next. And I would think if the protestant doctrine is the right one it would resist an honest investigation.

So it looks like this place was not for me to begin with and I should look for one with more freedom of expression. No ill will toward anyone.

Farewell

 

[DHK]

Ok, here is the thing, I honestly didn't know or see it was a rule to begin with. And yes that's just who I am, I don't believe it is good to restrict things that can be talked about.

I come from a Catholic background, and I had wished to ascertain which of the Catholic or protestant doctrine was the right one.

If I'm not allowed to show what these doctrines are to begin with then it is very hard to progress from one state to the next. And I would think if the protestant doctrine is the right one it would resist an honest investigation.

So it looks like this place was not for me to begin with and I should look for one with more freedom of expression. No ill will toward anyone.

Farewell

We have always restricted links to sites from other religions unless they were simply for reference, such as "The RCC Catechism," or "The Great Controversy," or another reference book. However when a site is posted to advertise their religion, or to attack the beliefs of this board then it is ethically and morally wrong.

This is a debate board. If you can't provide a definition of "justification" from your own knowledge, then do so from a RCC dictionary or encyclopedia. Links from a RCC apologist rambling on hours in length disseminating and propagating the heresy of the RCC, while at the same time tearing down our beliefs, simply is not permitted for obvious reasons. This is just common sense.

It has nothing to do with restrictiveness, censure, etc. It has to do with the purpose of this board. It is a debate forum where we freely exchange ideas and opinions with one and other.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

'OneBaptism', we hardly knew ya' :wavey:

 

[JonC]

'OneBaptism', we hardly knew ya' :wavey:

I'm sure we'll get another chance....we always do :laugh:

 

[JonC]

Ok, here is the thing, I honestly didn't know or see it was a rule to begin with. And yes that's just who I am, I don't believe it is good to restrict things that can be talked about.

I come from a Catholic background, and I had wished to ascertain which of the Catholic or protestant doctrine was the right one.

If I'm not allowed to show what these doctrines are to begin with then it is very hard to progress from one state to the next. And I would think if the protestant doctrine is the right one it would resist an honest investigation.

So it looks like this place was not for me to begin with and I should look for one with more freedom of expression. No ill will toward anyone.

Farewell

I would have liked to have seen the video, and if you can PM a link to me I'd appreciate it. Just a side note - it is a bit interesting, I suppose, that many have arrived at "justification by faith" through Scripture and apart from collaboration. But I'd still like to see the video.

 

[lakeside]

You need to read all the bible to understand specific portions.

James adds clarification to Paul:

James 2
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

 

[DHK]

You need to read all the bible to understand specific portions.

James adds clarification to Paul:

James 2
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

You cherry-pick verses without giving thought to contextual meaning.
The key verse of that passage is back in verse 18:

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James demonstrated his faith with his works. It was the faith that saved, faith and faith alone. But if a man claimed to have faith and his life never showed was his faith genuine? That is, was it a genuine profession in Christ? James answers no, and that is what this passage is speaking about.
The them of the book is practical Christian living, not salvation.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, keep reading and we see that Verse 20 : "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead "?

 

[vooks]

DHK, keep reading and we see that Verse 20 : "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead "?

Briefly, and in your own words, what is the purpose of Christ's sacrifice?

 

[lakeside]

Man needs pure grace in order to be saved. i.e. he can’t do it on his own. That’s the lesson to be learned-what Adam & Eve didn’t know-that we need God absolutely, without exception, no way around it. The Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ-the Atonement- is pure grace, because it’s the pure love of God demonstrated and poured out upon mankind-it’s what God is willing to do for us-His love in action.

The real lesson is that God exists and only God can save man-only God can give man life-and life abundantly, life worth living eternally. Christ died to prove that-although He never deserved to be doubted, let alone rejected and hated, as scripture attests He was. But He was willing to prove it anyway if that what it takes to overcome our doubt, to restore man’s faith, then his hope, and ultimately his love, finally bringing him around to full justice.

That's what the New Covenant is all about.

 

[DHK]

Man needs pure grace in order to be saved. i.e. he can’t do it on his own.

If you know that why are you a RCC?
The RCC doesn't believe that. They believe works, not grace saves.
It is the work of baptism, the work of the sacraments, the work of confession of sins to a priest, etc., etc., that both saves and keeps one saved.
The Bible teaches that it is grace and grace alone that saves. That is, that salvation is all of God, and nothing that man can do.

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--Grace and works are opposed to each other.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, the confusion about Catholic "works'' is greatly misunderstood by you and most other non-Catholics.

 

[DHK]

DHK, the confusion about Catholic "works'' is greatly misunderstood by you and most other non-Catholics.

No it isn't; I was a Catholic for 20 years. Don't tell me I misunderstand Catholic doctrine. I don't. I studied it thoroughly then, and even more thoroughly after I got out. I have learned both by experience and by study. I have an advantage over you.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, I too was a Baptist for almost three years and I now only study Catholicism from ex-Baptist Bible teachers/ Apologists, theologians. Many Catholics have left because they either were not ready for accepting Jesus or they were insufficiently educated in their Christian Faith, because I know , I was one.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I too was a Baptist for almost three years and I now only study Catholicism from ex-Baptist Bible teachers/ Apologists, theologians. Many Catholics have left because they either were not ready for accepting Jesus or they were insufficiently educated in their Christian Faith, because I know , I was one.

I was a Catholic for 20 years. It is quite apparent from you posts on this board that your attendance at a Baptist church for 3 years did not make you a Baptist, or did not change you inwardly, and in that time you did not become very well acquainted with the Word of God. Therefore you cannot compare your experience with mine at all.