would say to this that the Church that later developed into the RCC had a mixture of true christianity with false/pagen views even early on, and that by time of Constatine and later Popes, had blown up into the full heretical church codied down in Council of trent!
-
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!
Savior versus Sacrament
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
would say to this that the Church that later developed into the RCC had a mixture of true christianity with false/pagen views even early on, and that by time of Constatine and later Popes, had blown up into the full heretical church codied down in Council of trent!
You must have missed the RCC"baptismof desire", where it indeed states that ALL sincere believers of faith, especially those of the Book such as jews and Muslims would be saved by god , as their sincere faith in their religion would be credited as if they knew and followed the RCC!
RCC claims both groups worship same God as Christians, and that IF they never had opportunity to know RCC doctrines, get credit for following their religions well!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No. I wouldn't say that at all. In fact all the doctrines of the Catholic Church can be traced back to the begining. 2ndly By making such a statement you are also by implication saying that Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not over come the Church was false for at least the next 1300 years. Have you read the council of Trent? Do you know what they actually say?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Nonsense. Baptism of desire is for the people who have faith in Jesus and cannot yet be baptized. If they had the opportunity they would have. Now its true new converts don't have everything figured out but the fact is to be Catholic you have to go through a Catachesis process to learn the details. Yet as Christianity is defined anyone who does not hold to the beliefs espoused in the Nicean Creed are by determined to be heretical. As to their eternal salvation its between them and God but their beliefs aren't Christian.
2 points.... one can be saved apart from baptism, correct? So what makes us saved in RCC, faith in jesus or the Baptism?
Also, Rome HAS said that other faiths would be valid towards receiving such 'credit", for surely they would have become catholic if they would have had the chance!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Yes
God historically has dealt with man in covenants (this is why I'm not a dispensationalist). And in those covenants God establishes how he wants to be approached and how he approaches us. And for the Christian that covenant is made in baptism of the believer and God uses that to provide us Grace.
What do you believe about people who never had the opportunity to know Christ. Never heard the gospel. Never met a missionary and had no exposure to the Gospel of Christ?
Just addressing what the RCC states on other faiths/religions!
Rome holds that God will 'credit them" for sincere faith in their religion, as being faithful , they would have no doubt become catholic if allowed the chnace!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
not accurately or in proper context. You still haven't answered the question.
Yes, it always, always comes back to this foundational issue of sacramental salvation (that is my expression for it). If baptism as RCC and OCC interpret it is wrong then the whole RCC and OCC system of salvation collapses into a ash heap of rubble.
That is precisely why no RCC or OCC has attempted to answer by thread entitled "The Blessedness - Rom. 4:6-8." That thread cannot be answered by any RCC or OCC advocate IF honesty and integrity with both that scripture text and the CCC is the governing principle.
IF a person states that one is saved/fully justified before God by faith alone in work of Chrsit upon the Cross, if they refuse to say the blood /body of jesus really is in the Eucharist, if they deny the papacy, if they deny theright/authority of the RCC as the ONLY and the TRUE church...
ALL of that is in those documents, and basically IF one knows what Rome teaches, and still denies it, let them go 'to hell"
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I believe that. If not for the work of Christ on the Cross I would not be able to even consider the sanctified life that Jesus wants me to have.
Uh... It seems you need to read the nicean creed again. But my question is If that then what?
I think you misunderstand many things. The Catholic Church doesn't send anyone to hell. People send themselves there. There is a lot of things in the NT too and its clear you must believe it all. What happens if you don't believe whats in the NT? If someone is Heterodox with Catholic beliefs their eternal salvation is between them and God. However, they are basing their salvation not necissarily on the revealed truths God has given but their own understanding. Which I find problematic.
I am a calvinist in reagrds to salvation, so ALL of us are sinners guilty before God, due to us being sinners by birth and confirmed by willful sinning...
God has chosen to Himself sinners to be redeemed as Objects of His mercies, and those will be given the Gospel somehow/someway, either thru missionaries/tv/radio etc!
As salvation NOT found in RCC/baptist churches, but in the person of Christ, and we access that by faith alone!
Although I reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, I agree with you on this. The doctrine of the Real Presence was universally accepted and taught for the first 1500 years of church history. This doctrine can be found among earliest writings of the church Fathers. It is of course my conviction that the doctrine of the Real Presence is clearly taught in the New Testament as well. In fact it was this doctrine more than any other that caused me to set aside my Baptist beliefs.
Last edited by a moderator:
It was not taught "universally" for the first 1500 years as it was rejected by the Waldenses and other ancient Anabaptists. Neither is it taught in the Scriptures. The only "presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper is SYMBOLIC and nothing more.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Ah...So you are a robot person! God chose before he created the world those whom he would save. And he also chose those whom he would damn to Hell. And You really don't have free will because since God arbitrarily chose you from the begining of time his irresistable grace organized your situation so that with the programing he gave you at birth and the effects of regeneration before you knew God even existed you naturally believed in Jesus Because God made you part of the elite crowd of the very few he selected from the begining of the universe. At least I'm clear with your position on salvation where free will doesn't exist and you didn't exercise it to chose for Jesus. Let me put it suscinctly for you you believe in salvation in this order 1)God elected some reprobated the rest. 2) God created the universe to include man (already pre-programmed both universe and particular human nature - irresistable grace) 3) God permited the fall (did he cause it?) 4) God provided salvation only for the elect ( never mind that God desires that all men might be saved) 5) regenerate the elect (programing taking effect. So accordingly if you are correct whether someone is saved or not has nothing to do with the person but how God programed them from the begining.
All apart of the programing he's chose for each of the elect and non elect.
I don't know why you are hard on them according to your theology. They didn't chose this for themselves they were made this way. They are as you would say in your theology "vesels made for destruction." You should pitty them and let them in peace. Why bother witnessing to them?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Well, fortunately for us we're not wrong. And by the way I already answered your faulty view of Romans 4:6-8. You take it out of context and make it the doctrine espoused by Paul when Paul is using that only to show the effect (blessedness) of a person who forgiven their sins which comes through faith working in obedience which is the point of the whole book of Romans.
Oh, sure you did:tongue3: You jerked every text out of context and when I pointed your abusive interpetations out YOU NEVER RESPONDED but just went on your merry way so you could claim you answered my challenge. Any idiot could respond like you did and it means nothing!
What an absolute Joke! The "blessedness" is defined explicitly as remission of sins and imputed righteousness that the "ungodly" receives soley by faith "WITHOUT WORKS." That "blessedness" is not received through divine ordinances, such as circumcision (Rom. 4:9-12) but that is exactly what the CCC clearly and explicitly demands and you know it! Pure deceit and no honesty, no integrity or objectively at all in your responses. Catholics on this forum are too cowardly to respond to that thread ("The Blessedness - Rom. 4:6-8). Your response was an abolute mockery of honesty and objectivity.
You, nor any Roman or Othodox Catholic or any Catholic Advocate will take up my challenge in the thread "The Blessedness - Rom. 4:6-8" simply because you cannot do so without contradicting the CCC. No Catholic has yet to even attempt to respond to that thread!!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
What's there to respond to? I showed you the context of Romans as a book namely
where Romans four specifically dealing with Judaizers because
They were boasting about their Jewishness over the gentiles not living rightly.
However, the question then becomes are jews any better off? Well
No because we are all in sin
So how what is the answer? well
which can be shown by Abraham
So its clear the point of Romans 4 with specifically the audience being the Judaizers in the crowd is about faith not blessedness in that blessedness comes from the forgiveness of sin because of that faith
which applies to everyone not just the jews
So then Romans 4 with specific relevance to the Judaizers in the church is about Jews not relying ont heir Jewishness but rather their Faith which leads to the forgiveness of sins (that provides blessedness) with the goal in mind for the overall idea of Romans that that faith leads to obedience. You take blessedness out of context and on that one word try to create a whole theology. I explained this to you and you ignored it so what is there to respond to? I've already dealt with it.
The book of Romans covers MANY different subjects. It covers Paul’s own apostolic calling; it covers the PRE-salvational condition of both Jews and Gentiles, It covers the nature of sin, the nature of the fall, it covers many different aspects of salvation, it covers false teachers, greetings, salutations, etc.
So your GENERALIZED response to Romans 4:5-12 here is eisgesis to the hilt! Specifically, your response ASSUMES your own position (circular reasoning) as the terms “the faith” does not always mean the same thing depending upon the context. It can refer in doctrinal contexts to the apostolic doctrine and practice (Acts 16:3-4; Jude 3; 1 Tim. 4:1). In other contexts it can refer merely to the gospel demand or “the faith” that embraces the gospel of Christ for salvation. In some contexts it refers merely to the fruit of the Spirit or faith in general. In Romans it is used in a variety of ways. Romans 14:1 uses it for apostolic doctrine as a body of faith and practice. In Romans 4:11 it refers to the initial faith in the gospel.
In Romans 1:18-3:23 there is but one subject in view and that is that both Jew and Gentiles are EQUALLY sinners before God and it is in that context that the UNREGENERATED Jew makes his boast over the Gentile (Rom. 2:17-3:8) which Paul systematically repudiates demonstrating “THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for all have sinned” both Jew and Gentile regardless of their TEMPORAL advantages over the Gentiles.
The term "works" or "without works" in Romans 4:1-6 has reference contextually to the personal works of Abraham - A GENTILE. The terms "works" and "without works" cannot be interpreted to mean "Jewishness" or "without Jewishness" because Abraham lived 430 years before JEWISHNESS or before the LAW OF MOSES. Hence, the terms "works" and "without works" in Romans 4:1-6 refer to Abraham's personal works of righteousness as in Titus 3:5 "not by works of righteousness which we have done."
Hence, Romans 4 has nothing to do with the boasting of the Jew over their Jewishness as you falsely claim but over the fact that the GENTILE Abraham is the PATTERN of justification "without works" (whether it is JEWISH works or GENTILE works) for both Jews and Gentiles.
That was NEVER the question in the first place. The issue is does the Wrath of God revealed from heaven against “ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS” apply merely to Gentiles (Rom. 1:18) or do the Jews escape it (Rom. 2:17-29) based on the fact they had the Mosaic law and attempted to keep it. It is in light of that issue that Paul asks the question in Romans 3:1 does the Jew have any advantage over the Jew! In respect to greater light yes (Rom. 3:2-8) but in respect of sin nature and sin the answer is NO – Rom. 3:9-23. This is where you go astray. You make Romans 1:18-4:25 all about a SIDE issue rather than the MAIN issue! Your mishandling of these context can be easily proven by Romans 3:19-20 and the UNIVERSAL condemnation "under the law" of both Jews and Gentiles - "every mouth" not merely the JEWISH mouth. ALL the world, not merely the JEWISH world. NO flesh shall be justified by the works of the law, not merely JEWISH flesh.
You miss the fact that the overall picture is that whether the law is written on stone or on the conscience it is the SAME RIGHTEOUS STANDARD "for there is no difference for ALL have sinned."
You attempt to make this context a JEWISH matter when Paul is making it a UNIVERSAL matter and by denying JEWISHNESS given any more advantage IN REGARD TO SIN and the UNIVERAL LAW of God equally condemns the Gentiles and the lessor revelation of the Law of God in nature and in conscience.
There is but ONE WAY FOR BOTH TO BE JUSTIFIED before God and that ONE WAY is precisely why Abraham is brought into the picture as a GENTILE to illustrate there is but ONE WAY for both Jews and Gentiles to be justified “before God.”
Paul is not writing to Judiazers but to the saints at Rome and they are named in Romans 16! Paul is establishing the saints in the faith –the apostolic doctrine and practices in order that they can defend themselves against such judiazers (Rom. 16:17-18). What is applicable to the Judiazers is comprehensive of the Gentiles as well as the very SAME LAW although in reduced form is revealed to the Gentiles and equally violated as with the Jews - Rom. 3:19-20.
Abraham is given as an illustration of a GENTILE living 430 years prior to The Law of Moses and therefore his “works” cannot be interpreted by any work for Salvationist to be JEWISHNESS works and that is precisely what you do in the very next paragraph:
Romans is not addressed to Judiazers. It is addressed to the saints Rome. It is not written to the JEWISH saints at Rome! It is written to ALL the saints. It is written to give them an orderly defense of the faith against such judiazers (Rom. 16:17-18).
"the works of the Law" are comprehensive of the same law revealed to the Gentiles and that is why Romans 3:19-20 is UNIVERSAL in application as Romans 3:9-18 demands.
It is impossible to separate the BASIS from the “effects” in this passage as it is the BASIS or the constituient parts of justification that provides the only basis for the contextual effects, without which, your “effects” are absurdly ridiculous! Romans 4:9-12 deal specifically "HOW" these effects are acquired! They can only be acquired ALONG WITH THE CONSTITUENT aspects of justification spelled out in verses 5-8! Period!
Last edited by a moderator: