The Doctrine of Justification: The True Gospel

[lori4dogs]

Actually, the topic of this thread isn't whether or not Roman Catholics are saved. The subject is the doctrine of Justification, please try to comment upon that subject.


Thanks.

Sorry about that. I zigged when I should have zagged and ended up on the wrong thread.
:wavey:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You are right, I was typing just that as you typed this :laugh:

I'm not "anticatholic" in any stretch...my wife's entire family is in their grip at the moment.
I will also say a baptist indwelt with the Holy Spirit is just as qualified, if not more in understanding the catechism "rule book" of sorts. My wife (a converted catholic herself) even concedes to this brainwashing having a grip on her understanding of justification and no need to understand the Bible as that is what the church is for (a HIGHLY popular view amongst RCC's). That is why I stated the majority of those who are true believers either don't understand the churches teaching or go against it. It's quite cut and dried in the catechism what the church believes.

You are correct. I have a good friend who repented of his sins and turned to Christ Jesus leaving roman catholicism, but his wife has remain a papist.

It has gotten to the point where she is always seeking to undermine his bible teaching, has made statemetns that the bible isn't necessary because they have their church, et.

I don't know how common this actually is among roman catholics.

When I spent time with a roman catholic in college, whatever her understanding was from her church, she was so terrified of the Bible that she would not even take it from me to read it. I had to read passages to her.

Now certainly these are individual cases. But it is..well..weird.

 

[lori4dogs]

You are correct. I have a good friend who repented of his sins and turned to Christ Jesus leaving roman catholicism, but his wife has remain a papist.


It has gotten to the point where she is always seeking to undermine his bible teaching, has made statemetns that the bible isn't necessary because they have their church, et.

I don't know how common this actually is among roman catholics.

When I spent time with a roman catholic in college, whatever her understanding was from her church, she was so terrified of the Bible that she would not even take it from me to read it. I had to read passages to her.

Now certainly these are individual cases. But it is..well..weird.

Wow, we have a total of fifty people attending our Weds. evening Catholic bible study. So far I have seen none who are afraid to pick up a bible.

I wonder if we qualify as those 'weird' cases.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Wow, we have a total of fifty people attending our Weds. evening Catholic bible study. So far I have seen none who are afraid to pick up a bible.

I wonder if we qualify as those 'weird' cases.

I said it was weird. This gal would not even touch the Bible she was so afraid of making her own interpretations. I don't think it is true of all Roman Catholics.

I do think, however, that Roman Catholics listen to their church over their Bibles though.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I do think, however, that Roman Catholics listen to their church over their Bibles though.

Clearly .

 

[Johnv]

I have no idea what catholic bashing is.

Not surprising, since the guilty don't often see their own guilt. A few months ago you accusing me of not really being a Reformed Baptist, despite not having any grounds for the accusation. Your penchant for bashing people instead of discussing topics continues.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Not surprising, since the guilty don't often see their own guilt. A few months ago you accusing me of not really being a Reformed Baptist, despite not having any grounds for the accusation. Your penchant for bashing people instead of discussing topics continues.

Oh, the irony!

 

[Johnv]

Oh, the irony!

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to acknowlege your own propensity to do the same.

 

[billwald]

HOW ABOUT SOME CITATIONS from the new Catholic Catechism from the thread starter? The text is well indexed. Every paragraph is numbered.

Make your point!

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Not surprising, since the guilty don't often see their own guilt. A few months ago you accusing me of not really being a Reformed Baptist, despite not having any grounds for the accusation. Your penchant for bashing people instead of discussing topics continues.

So your accusing me of bashing people.

I am not saying that in a heated moment I would not. So, please cite those instances both of me personally attacking a Roman Catholic and of me saying your not a Reformed Baptist. I have no idea whether you are or not.

If you can't, please get back to the topic and stop dodging the subjects.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to acknowlege your own propensity to do the same.

Could you please give some examples of my having done this?

 

[Johnv]

So your accusing me of bashing people.

You seem to be more interested in engaging in bashing than having respectful discussions on a topic. You've certainly done that with me, and that's undeniable.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You seem to be more interested in engaging in bashing than having respectful discussions on a topic. You've certainly done that with me, and that's undeniable.

Ok, your feeling of that is heard. I am asking if you would provide an example. Where have you felt that I have done that with you. Why do you think it is undeniable? Please provide some links to me words to you doing this.

 

[Johnv]

Could you please give some examples of my having done this?

You might want to go over this thread and see if your posts aren't over the top as far as crossing the line between discussion of topic and bashng of persons.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63140

Where have you felt that I have done that with you. Why do you think it is undeniable? Please provide some links to me words to you doing this.

In this thread, starting with this page, you made the acusation that my church wasn't really Reformed, and was practicing heresy:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=61317&page=6

 

[ReformedBaptist]

In this thread, starting with this page, you made the acusation that my church wasn't really Reformed, and was practicing heresy:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...t=61317&page=6

I would encourage everyone, if they actually care, to click that link and read it. The discussion was on the contemplative spirituality and the emergent church movement, and then JohnV here claimed to be part of a Reformed Baptist church, which is not a part of any fellowship of Reformed churches.

So, yes, JohnV, you give one much cause to question, wonder, and doubt your "Reformed Baptist" idea when you claim:

1. To have emergent church practices
2. Hold to a creed that is contrary to those practices.
3. Refuse and to vote against being associated with a fellowship that would hold you and your leadership accountable.
4. Refuse to answer other questions.

Go back and read what I wrote. At first I thought you were saying you were a part of an emergent church. Then you said your church was Reformed Baptist. The emergent church movement is a cesspool of heresy and a road to Rome.

And..whoah! Here you are defending the Man of Sin yourself.

I rest my case.

lol

 

[Johnv]

1. To have emergent church practices

Which practices, exactly, are practiced by my church that are contraty to either Scripture or to Reformed Theology?

2. Hold to a creed that is contrary to those practices.

What creed do we hold to that is contrary to said practices?

3. Refuse and to vote against being associated with a fellowship that would hold you and your leadership accountable.

Belonging to a fellowship is not a prerequisite to be Reformed.

4. Refuse to answer other questions.

Ridiculous! You're making accusations without evidence. Again. What, exactly is my church doing that is heretical? You can't even answer.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Which practices, exactly, are practiced by my church that are contraty to either Scripture or to Reformed Theology?

You tell me! Go back and look at your posts. Granted, I read fast and may have missed it, but you said you guys have emergent practices, not me. I have no idea what you do.

What creed do we hold to that is contrary to said practices?

Do you guys smoke weed with your incence? :laugh: Your the one who said your church adheres to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Belonging to a fellowship is not a prerequisite to be Reformed.

Who said it was?

Ridiculous! You're making accusations without evidence. Again. What, exactly is my church doing that is heretical? You can't even answer.

Go back and re-read our dialogue. At some point you lost touch with reality.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You might want to go over this thread and see if your posts aren't over the top as far as crossing the line between discussion of topic and bashng of persons.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63140

OK. I clicked on that link and it led me right back to the thread about Catholics being saved. Here are each one of my posts in that thread:

Catholicism is a lot like Mormonism in the sense that there may be one or two people in Catholicism who are Christians, but if they're saved, it's in spite of Catholic doctrine, not because of it.

Didn't "bash" anyone there.

But the individuals in the religion are in the religion because they believe in the religion.

Sorry, but the Catholic view of justification cannot save you, no matter how sincerely you believe in it.

You can do everything else right, but the moment you depend on a religious work or ritual to save you, you're disqualified as a Christian. The moment you deny the sufficiency of Christ's atonement to save you, as Catholics do, you're disqualified as a Christian.

I don't see any "bashing" there, either. Maybe there will be some bashing in post #20.

We're not talking about knowledge or understanding. We're talking about an outright denial of the Biblical doctrine of justification.

Frankly, I'm starting to become a little disturbed by this thread. Since when do Baptists believe that one can deny salvation by faith alone and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement and be saved?

Nope, I guess not.

So, if they're so insincere as to affirm Catholic teaching every time they take the Eucharist, how do you know that they are sincere when it comes to telling you what they believe?

OK. Complete this verse for me: "Broad is the way that leads to _______". I'll give you a hint: the answer is found in Matthew 7:13.

No. The Bible is very clear that there are certain core doctrines one MUST hold to in order to be saved.

Simple: you pick up a history book and the Didache and look at what the church taught. ((And don't let Catholics fool you into thinking that the Didache is a "Catholic book".))

You're making the false assumption that the church prior to the Reformation was the same as the modern day Catholic Church and taught the same things.

Remember, the Reformation began as a defense against the political corruption and heretical doctrines that were creeping into the church, not against things that already existed in the church.

The two most relevant to this topic are salvation by faith alone, through no work, ritual or merit of the individual and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

No, God consigns them to the Lake of Fire.

Yes, I am proclaiming what God has said.

Did you read my post?

Hey, you're the one who told me that your friends get up in front of their Catholic church and affirm Catholic doctrine, even though they don't really believe it.

Addressed this already.

Show me where in the NT we're told that someone can deny the Biblical doctrine of justification and still be saved.

No. If you deny the Biblical doctrine of justification, you weren't saved in the first place.

So, you disagree with me when I say that there was political corruption and heretical doctrine in the church, and your reasoning for disagreeing with me is that there was political corruption and heretical doctrines in the church? Well, I certainly can't argue with that logic.

Are you saying that no one was saved before Baptists?

Has anybody seen any "bashing" yet?

Well, that isn't what you said. Are you now claiming that someone can deny the Biblical doctrine of justification and be saved?

Show me, seriously. It isn't there.

Of course it's not there. And I never said it was. Honestly, if you have to resort to straw man arguments and putting words in my mouth, please let me know now so I can ignore you.

Again, we're not talking about knowing or understanding Biblical doctrine. We're talking about rejecting Biblical doctrine.

Yep. And you also have to trust in Him ONLY for your salvation.

The issue isn't Baptists vs Catholics, but whether or not one can reject the Biblical doctrine of justification and still be saved.

Sadly, this view is even seeping into Baptist churches.

Show me one person here who doesn't believe in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, or in the fact that Christ and His vicarious atonement on the cross is the only avenue of salvation for sinners.

And if one believes that they're saved by their works? Are they saved? How about someone who believes that Christ's atonement wasn't sufficient to pay for their sins? Are they saved? Historically and Biblically, the answer is "no".

Agreed. However, it's one thing to be saved and not have a sound understanding of doctrine. It's quite another to be presented with sound Biblical doctrine and reject it.

A Catholic, by definition, affirms Catholic doctrine, which includes salvation by works and the insufficiency of Christ's atonement.


No, I never judged the salvation of any individual but your strawman is duly noted.

I agree. They will tell us that. And then they will turn right around and engage in Catholic rituals for their salvation.

Simple question, John: does Catholicism or does Catholicism not teach that the purpose of Purgatory is for the individual sinner to expiate his own sin?

And yet, you have such contempt for sound doctrine.

That Agnus Dei's parents didn't teach him any manners?

Irrelevant. Whether it's a place or a state of mind, its purpose is still for the sinner to expiate their own sin.

And the Bible says that we're made perfect in Christ when we're born again, not on our own after we die.

What in the world does this have to do with Purgatory?

Not one of these has anything to do with Purgatory.

They may say differently, but it is what they do.

Yes, I am proclaiming the Biblical message that there is no other name than Christ by which men may be saved, nor is there any other way than the way God has decreed by which men may be saved.

And this is another strawman on your part. First, you have no way of knowing how I would respond to a Catholic, since I haven't responded to any Catholics.

Second, it's a logical fallicy called "poisoning the well". By saying that I will automatically disregard any Catholic answer as "false" that does not "concur with my alleged presuppositions", any Catholic person can make a statement that is demonstrably false and, in your mind, I can't refute it because you've already declared that I wouldn't be refuting it because it's demonstrably false, but because it doesn't concur with my alleged preconceived notions.

But you're the one who made the argument. Therefore, you should be prepared to defend your own argument.

No, actually, I never noted anything like that. That's based on a false accusation you made against me, not on anything I said.

So, "doctrine shmoctrine" isn't a phrase meant to demean the idea that sound doctrine is important?

John, are you a Christian?

Not according to the Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon 30) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1475).

No, I look at them with the eyes of someone who has studied the scriptures for more than twenty years and who understands sound hermeneutic principles.

cont...

 

[JohnDeereFan]

...cont.

Really? So then, the Catholic position is to deny that one must go to Purgatory to expiate their own sins?

Could somebody please point out the "bashing" in any of these threads? This is really getting tiring.

Right. How can Catholics say ex ecclesia nulla salas, and then turn around and tell us that only Christ saves?

Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church an official Catholic document? Do you believe that the Council of Trent is an authoritative and accurate representation of what Catholic doctrines?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes.

That isn't an answer.

That's interesting, because Catholics believe that the Catholic Church never changes its doctrines.

What makes new truth more true than old truth?

Again, I find this ironic, since the religion you're defending bases their doctrines on documents and pronouncements that go hundreds of years, or even thousands.

I know what Christians believe sola gratia means. We believe it means salvation by grace alone, without any works or any merit of the individual.

Are you claiming that Catholics believe this? If this is true, then how do you reconcile this with ex ecclesia nulla salas and Purgatory, when sinners must go, according to Catholicism, to expiate their own sins?

John, if a Catholic claims that Catholicism doesn't teach that the purpose of Purgatory is for sinners to expiate their own sins, and a Christian comes along and shows from the Catholic Church's own sources that the purpose of Purgatory is for sinners to expiate their own sins, who is right?

So a rank and file Catholic is better suited to define Catholic doctrine than the Catholic Church, itself?

That makes no sense. What if two Catholics disagree? Isn't there a need for the Catholic Church to have an objective and authoritative statement of belief?

So, Baptists wrote the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Baptists are behind Trent?

Have you ever taken a church history class?

Then why do both the CCC and the Council of Trent say that it's the sinner who must expiate his own sins?

So then, again, what do you do with the idea of ex ecclesia nulla salas and the idea that sinners must expiate their own sins in Purgatory?

Then what is the purpose of Purgatory? The Catholic Church says it's for sinners to expiate their sins. You say it's something else. What is it?

But the Bible says that Christ has already perfected forever those whom He has sanctified.

Why isn't Christ's perfection good enough?

JACKPOT! Christ's work on the cross + your good works.

How so?

Oh, he made the non sequiter. Sorry. I misunderstood.

But people in Purgatory do not need to be healed. They need to be saved and their sins expiated.

Then why does the Bible say that all born again believers are already saints?

And this brings up another serious difference between the Catholic understanding of justification and the Biblical doctrine of justification:

Catholics believe in infused righteousness, while the Bible very clearly teaches imputed righteousness.

I've already shown you in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and from the Council of Trent.

I've shown you from two different Catholic documents what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory. So far, you haven't been able to refute them.

Just repeating "you don't know what you're talking about" over and over is not the same as refuting something.

If the blood of "our Redeemer" (by which, I assume you mean Christ) is the true Purgatory, then why the need for an after death place called Purgatory where sinners must go to expiate their own sins?

Furthermore, if Christ's blood is the true Purgatory, then what is the purpose of praying for the dead, that they would be released from Purgatory?

If they're a Catholic scholar or historian, then I could see how they might have a better understanding of it than I do, but I don't see why any one cannot plainly read the CCC or Trent's statements that Purgatory is for the expiation of sin and not be confident that they're saying that the purpose of Purgatory is for the expiation of sin.

First of all, you're assuming that I was always a Baptist. That would be false. I was taught by the same priests and nuns that the current-Catholics here were taught by.

Second, we're not talking about my understanding. I quoted Catholic sources so we're talking about the understanding of the Catholics behind the CCC and Trent, not me or any other Baptist.

Then how do you explain the passage I cited for you that says that Purgatory is for the expiation of sin?

If they're saved, then why do they need Purgatory?

But if Christ has already perfected forever all those whom He has sanctified, what more "purification" is necessary?

How is Christ's perfection not perfect?

Interesting choice of words.

Holiness is not something we "achieve". It is something that we're made when we're born again.

But the Bible says that all born again believers are already perfected and purified.

No you didn't. You had not yet made the claim that Christ's blood is your Purgatory.

So there you go, John. Literally every word I have posted in that thread and not one example of my having bashed anyone.

What's more, if we were to examine Reformed Baptists posts and compare them with the similar false accusations you made against him, I'm convinced that we wouldn't find any "bashing" in his posts, either.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Can we now just get on with the discussion?