The Doctrine of Justification: The True Gospel

[ReformedBaptist]

Ah. Now which bit of II Tim 3 would that be: the bit where Paul talks about Scripture (vv.15-16) or the bit where he talks about non-Scriptural doctrinal sources (v14)?



No, no confusion at all. I'm just saying I'm struggling to see the word 'grace' there attached to the anathema. Maybe you left a bit out. Oh wait - I've looked up the wording and you didn't - 'grace' isn't there in the original either. So it's a straw man.




No, I'm a Christian who is prepared to call someone on it when they are patently talking nonsense, injecting a word into a statement that just isn't there. If you have to resort to base crude insults that merely demonstrates how far you are from any credible argument. You're so far out you're not even wrong; like the Irish saying, "I wouldn't start from here."

Is not the canon about Justification? Are you justified by God apart from His grace?

You really don't want to exegete 2 Tim. It doesn't say what the papacy wants it to. "Oh, but that is your interpretation." Ok, that is me reading the Bible in my language (bought for me by the blood of many at the hands of the papacy) and understanding it.

But you need an infallible interpretor. Where can I turn to learn whether or not I need an infallible interpretor? Because we said so. Who are you? The infallible interpretor.

That is a little self-serving isn't it? So I ask again, how can I know I should listen to you or another?

And round and round the circle goes.

What Jesus taught us was that His sheep know His voice and follow Him. And we don't follow another because they are not the Shepherd. The papacy is not the voice of Jesus. When I hear this or that teaching from the Vatican I do not hear Jesus. It sounds like satan.

When I read the BIble I hear the voice of my Savior and follow.

 

[Matt Black]

Did you not read the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church I gave on the last page? It says very clearly "our justification comes from the grace of God".

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Did you not read the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church I gave on the last page? It says very clearly "our justification comes from the grace of God".

Explain that further. It is not enough for that to say this thing and yet mean another?

This is the pernicous nature of heretics, which you seem to be defending that the papal doctrine is not.

What does the papacy mean by justification?

What does the papacy mean by grace?

 

[Matt Black]

I will endeavour to do so tomorrow (GMT) but have to go to Christmas canapes with our bank now...

 

[lori4dogs]

First of all, Catholics do not believe in salvation by grace.

Second, yes, it does call those who believe in salvation by grace anathema:

Interesting statement. I guess my 'Saved By Grace' Catholic prayer community needs to find a new name and I need to take my 'Saved By Grace Catholic Prayer Community' bumper sticker off my car.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Interesting statement. I guess my 'Saved By Grace' Catholic prayer community needs to find a new name and I need to take my 'Saved By Grace Catholic Prayer Community' bumper sticker off my car.

I should say so, since you've already shown that you don't believe in salvation by grace.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Interesting statement. I guess my 'Saved By Grace' Catholic prayer community needs to find a new name and I need to take my 'Saved By Grace Catholic Prayer Community' bumper sticker off my car.

Lori,

I find it rather disingenuous to almost equate papal "saved by grace" with what we believe the Bible says about it. Everyone understands that you believe your church is right and everyone else is wrong.

But to suggest or imply that being saved by grace has the same meaning within the Roman church as it does in an evangelical/protestant church is patently false.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm not sure I see the difference between God declaring us just and making us inwardly just. Would you care to clarify?

I apologize for my imprecision. God declares a believer just based on Christ's righteousness, not because the believer is just. In the process of sanctification, we may reach some degree of holiness or inwardly just, but never enough, since God requires perfection to enter the kingdom.


Originally Posted by Tom Butler
We can never be just enough to satisfy God's justice.

I think that we can, through justification.

But maybe I'm not understanding what you mean here.

I probably should have said we can never be good enough to satisfy God's justice. Only the crucified and risen Christ was able to do that. (Isaiah 53:8 "He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied.")

I think we have to be careful here. Finney erred when he held that through faith we actually become just (or righteous). He was dead wrong.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I apologize for my imprecision. God declares a believer just based on Christ's righteousness, not because the believer is just. In the process of sanctification, we may reach some degree of holiness or inwardly just, but never enough, since God requires perfection to enter the kingdom.


Originally Posted by Tom Butler
We can never be just enough to satisfy God's justice.



I probably should have said we can never be good enough to satisfy God's justice. Only the crucified and risen Christ was able to do that. (Isaiah 53:8 "He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied.")

I think we have to be careful here. Finney erred when he held that through faith we actually become just (or righteous). He was dead wrong.

I don't think I can agree with what you are saying here.

I agree that by our own power and will we will never be just enough to satisfy God's requirements. But justification by definition is saying that through Christ's work on the cross, we are made just or made righteous.

Through justification, God makes us righteous and also declares us as righteous. Being righteous does not mean we are perfect and never sin, but that our sins have been paid for. Catholic theology acknowledges this and has lots of words to say about sanctification in the catechism as well.

I don't think you have made a very good argument for why justification is God declaring us just and not also God making us just. I still see them as one and the same.

I also don't see this as a Catholic-Protestant issue but a semantic issue that Protestants would probably disagree over as well.


Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori,

I find it rather disingenuous to almost equate papal "saved by grace" with what we believe the Bible says about it. Everyone understands that you believe your church is right and everyone else is wrong.

But to suggest or imply that being saved by grace has the same meaning within the Roman church as it does in an evangelical/protestant church is patently false.

I think we all know that you believe your church is right and everybody else is wrong as well. If you didn't, why would you be there?

 

[Johnv]

When I read the BIble I hear the voice of my Savior and follow.

That's not exactly true. When you read the Bible, you follow in accordance with scripture as it is applied by the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Cambridge Declaration, and Baptist Distinctives.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That's not exactly true. When you read the Bible, you follow in accordance with scripture as it is applied by the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Cambridge Declaration, and Baptist Distinctives.

No, when I read the Scriptures I follow the voice of God in Christ. The Scripture, adn Scripture alone, is the very speaking of God. The 1689 London, Cambride Declaration, and Baptist Distinctives are expressions of what I believe most closely says what the Bible says. All three are below and subjugated to the Scriptures.

Duh.

 

[Johnv]

The 1689 London, Cambride Declaration, and Baptist Distinctives are expressions of what I believe most closely says what the Bible says.

So if there's something in the 1689 London Confession, Cambride Declaration, or Baptist Distinctives that you don't see eye to eye on, then do you discard it?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So if there's something in the 1689 London Confession, Cambride Declaration, or Baptist Distinctives that you don't see eye to eye on, then do you discard it?

Yes. I take exception to it. These secondary documents I have found say best what I believe is the teaching of Scripture itself. But they are in no way equal to Scripture, as authoritative to Scripture, et. They have authority inasmuch as they agree with Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Interesting statement. I guess my 'Saved By Grace' Catholic prayer community needs to find a new name and I need to take my 'Saved By Grace Catholic Prayer Community' bumper sticker off my car.

If you are sincerely following the Catholic faith, yes you should. Go back and read carefully what was quoted straight from the catechism. Here is one paragraph:

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

Salvation is not due to the grace of God; it is due to man's merit. Through and through the quote emphasizes the merit, the work of man. This is blasphemous. It is quite contrary to what the Bible says about the grace of God:

Romans 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.

Which is it? Grace or works? You can't have it both ways. You are either saved entirely by the grace of God, or you are not saved by grace at all, and your religion is a religion of works. The RCC has chosen the latter and has rejected salvation by grace.

 

[Johnv]

Yes. I take exception to it.

And rightly so. Yet you're calling out others when they take exception to their church's documents of faith and position. When a Catholic comes here and says they adhere to justification by grace, that person is hounded for differeing from your reading of their church's documents. When a Reformed Baptist such myself comes here and says they're reformed Baptist, you insist they adhere to a particular positional statement. It seems the only one whom you do not require to adhere to those positional positions is yourself.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And rightly so. Yet you're calling out others when they take exception to their church's documents of faith and position. When a Catholic comes here and says they adhere to justification by grace, that person is hounded for differeing from your reading of their church's documents. When a Reformed Baptist such myself comes here and says they're reformed Baptist, you insist they adhere to a particular positional statement. It seems the only one whom you do not require to adhere to those positional positions is yourself.

If a "Reformed Baptist" does not have subtantial agreement with "Reformed Baptist" creeds, then what the heck is a Reformed Baptist? lol Your starting to sound silly.

When a papist comes in here saying they adhere to justification by grace, they DO NOT mean what the Bible teaches about the matter. Why you are in such defense of the Antichrist is beyond me. But you probably take exception that part of your confession.

 

[Johnv]

If a "Reformed Baptist" does not have subtantial agreement with "Reformed Baptist" creeds, then what the heck is a Reformed Baptist?

Given that you accused me of not being reformed Baptist without any evidentiary knowlege to the contrary, it's clear that you require more than just a substantial agreement.

When a papist comes in here saying they adhere to justification by grace, they DO NOT mean what the Bible teaches about the matter.

That's little more than an excuse for you to just dismiss what anything a Catholic says whenever their comments don't meet with your preconception. Not unlike what you did with me and your preceonception that I wasn't a Reformed Baptist. You don't believe I'm a Reformed Baptist based solely on yoru preconcieved notion, and nothing else. If I say I adhere to Reformed Theology, you'll just dismiss it as "no you don't". It's the same thing you do with Catholics.

Why you are in such defense of the Antichrist is beyond me. But you probably take exception that part of your confession.

I don't defend anything antichrist. I simply don't dismiss people's comments on their personal faith based on my preconception of what their religious beliefs should be. I most certainly don't assume that a person is lost simly because they are Catholic, as some others on the topic have done.

 

[Johnv]

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Given that you accused me of not being reformed Baptist without any evidentiary knowlege to the contrary, it's clear that you require more than just a substantial agreement.

Given that you keep whining about this it is clear that you need to man-up and get over it.

That's little more than an excuse for you to just dismiss what anything a Catholic says whenever their comments don't meet with your preconception. Not unlike what you did with me and your preceonception that I wasn't a Reformed Baptist. You don't believe I'm a Reformed Baptist based solely on yoru preconcieved notion, and nothing else. If I say I adhere to Reformed Theology, you'll just dismiss it as "no you don't". It's the same thing you do with Catholics.

Wrong. Your the one that called your own profession into question by saying your church and your assent to the emergent church movement which is known for its heresies. Perhaps if you stop your affinity for heretical groups, people wouldn't get the impression of the appearance of evil from you.

And concerning the Antichrist, yeah...I am skeptical of its smooth speech. But it seems you have more praise for it than your own brethren.

Duh.

I don't defend anything antichrist. I simply don't dismiss people's comments on their personal faith based on my preconception of what their religious beliefs should be. I most certainly don't assume that a person is lost simly because they are Catholic, as some others on the topic have done.

The papacy is that Man of Sin foretold of in Scripture. It is THE Antichrist. And while I know many Reformed brethren who believe that, I know others who are not sure, but are confident that if it isn't THE Antichrist, they know it is antichrist.

My conclusions about you from your posts leave me quite concerned about those claiming "reformed baptist" and even at churches that hold to such a creed.

As I told you before, the emergent church is rife with papist mysticism. And behold...a man defending them!