whats Does The RCC mass/Eucherist Add To lacking of the Cross?

[The Biblicist]

Your line of questioning is full of guile! Your line of questioning is a tactical attempt to present my view of justification by faith as something that STANDS ALONE apart from the work of regeneration in the same person so that you can charge my view simply a theoretical type of salvation without any practical bearing on the actual state of the person being justified.

However, that is a false representation of my view and the Biblical view. The Biblical view distinguishes justification from regeneration in regard to their individual nature but not in regard to their occurrence in time.

However, I will play you little game and answer your questions.



My view of "justification" is forensic as the very term is a judicial term and infers a court of law. It is a completed one time action WITH CONTINUING RESULTS. - Rom. 4:12; 5:1-2



The imputed righteousness of Christ guarantees no future eternal condemnation from a legal standing, so yes.



No! I do not believe there are any "brothers" existing within the believer but their are two mutual ENEMIES that exist within the believer and that indwelling sin cannot possibly EVER be reconciled to the New man in life or death but must be destroyed by death completely and be completely erradicated.



There is no such thing as a justified but unrengerated child of God as it is regeneration that produces the new man which is hostile to indwelling sin. Some extent of progressive sanctification is necessary but that extent as far as both TIME and DEGREE is determined soverignly by God according to the measure of days he has determined and the time of death (theif on the cross) and the purpose he has determined for your life which the measure of faith and grace and gifts are indicators (Eph. 2:10b; Rom. 12:3,7; Philip. 2:13). However, regardless of the INCOMPLETE progression of sanctification in this life there must be FULL and COMPLETE glorification which occurs AT the resurrection BEFORE the judgement seat of Christ demonstrating our INCOMPLETE works both good and bad have absolutely nothing to do with judgement about eternal destination but only rewards in that destination.

Getting back to the subject.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your line of questioning is full of guile!

No. But that accurately discribes your line of questioning.

Your line of questioning is a tactical attempt to present my view of justification by faith as something that STANDS ALONE apart from the work of regeneration in the same person

My line of questioning is determining your belief with regards to what the reformers said which you said you don't adhere to!!!

Let me ask you another question. Does regeneration free you of sin in this life? Or are you able to still sin and if you do still sin then how do you look at justification? It is clear that you by your own admission hold to Justification as only a legal declaration and only at one point in time. You also hold to Once Saved Always Saved which must by its approach question the necessity of sanctification.

so that you can charge my view simply a theoretical type of salvation without any practical bearing on the actual state of the person being justified.

You're own definition does that for you. I had nothing to do with it.

However, that is a false representation of my view and the Biblical view

Its your claimed view.

The Biblical view distinguishes justification from regeneration in regard to their individual nature but not in regard to their occurrence in time

Do you believe that Justification is at one point in time?

Do you believe that you can sin even after you've been regenerated?

However, I will play you little game and answer your questions.

Its not a game its questioning to determine how in line you are with the reformers.

My view of "justification" is forensic as the very term is a judicial term and infers a court of law. It is a completed one time action WITH CONTINUING RESULTS.

Same thing the reformers said. Therefore justification isn't someone actually becoming righteous but only declared so.

The imputed righteousness of Christ guarantees no future eternal condemnation from a legal standing, so yes.

Just admit you are guaranteed salvation by being legaly declared just whether or not you are in actuality just.

No! I do not believe there are any "brothers" existing within the believer but their are two mutual ENEMIES that exist within the believer and that indwelling sin cannot possibly EVER be reconciled to the New man in life or death but must be destroyed by death completely and be completely erradicated.

You've just contradicted yourself. You say no but then say Yes.

There is no such thing as a justified but unrengerated child of God

That wasn't a question. But the question wasn't answered. Is there or is there not a requirement for sanctification?

as it is regeneration that produces the new man which is hostile to indwelling sin.

Ok so you are two people the regenerated man and the old man and both are in a wrestling contest. Still doesn't answer the question.

Some extent of progressive sanctification is necessary but that extent as far as both TIME and DEGREE is determined soverignly by God according to the measure of days he has determined

So what you are really saying is that there has to be a little sanctification or let the regenerated man win once in a long while determined by how much God wants him to win of the Old man in the life he's given to the single christian. So in reality all you require is just enough sanctification and that is only determined by God. In otherwords there is no real requirement for sanctification or to by an act of your will put to death the old man and live a sanctified life. So in essense you can let the old man win 99.9999% of the time and guaranteed salvation. In fact, you can at the outset of your regeneration live rightly for 1 hour (because that is God's will for your level of sanctification) and spend the rest of your life in opposition to God's life giving righteousness and still enter heaven.

So how are you any different from the reformers?

 

[The Biblicist]

My line of questioning is determining your belief with regards to what the reformers said which you said you don't adhere to!!!

Why pervert my view then? Yes, you are! I underscored and placed in bold the exact aspect of the Reformers definition I did not agree with. Go back and read it.
I do not believe in any application of justification that is isolated from regeneration and/or an actual change of the sinners nature. Where there is justification there is regeneration or their is NEITHER!

Its your claimed view.

No, it is not! It is your PERCEPTION of my view and a WRONG perception.

Justification is not merely a POINT in time but a COMPLETED POINT in time that continues as a completed action. Meaning, the original faith in Christ continues as a active faith in Christ in conjunction with progressive sanctification. You miss that little point. Not separated and isolated from progressive sanctification but in connection with progressive sanctification.

Furthermore, regeneration is impartation of an a PERFECT RIGHTEOUS nature, called the inward man or new man which consists of the "spirit" of man - what is "born of Spirit is spirit" (Jn. 3:6) and His Spirit bears witness with "our spirit" and what is born of God cannot sin because His seed abideth in him - in the new man which is born from the incorruptible seed - The Spirit of Jesus Christ. Hence, actual righteousness is imparted in regeneration and worked out through progressive sanctification to some extent IN EVERY TRUE CHILD OF GOD.

Do you believe that you can sin even after you've been regenerated?

Do you believe that any person you would recognize as a Christian can in this life attain COMPLETE and PERFECT sanctification? If you do then John calls you a liar (1 Jn. 1:8-10). If not, then you concede that sanctification is ALWAYS incomplete and both limited in extent to time (length of life lived) and degree. Therefore , the argument between you and I is merely about EXTENT but never about SINLESS perfection.

You fail to distinguish between the purpose of the life of Christ imputed to you and YOUR own life of imparted limited righteousness. Which one actually meets the laws demands? Which one actually does not come short of the glory of God??

Which one represents the "rock" versus the "house" built upon the rock? Which one only reaps "rewards" versus obtains the FULL approval of God's law in every aspect? Which one is IMPUTED versum LIMITEDLY imparted in your actual life?

You have a lot more problems with this question than I do.

Therefore justification isn't someone actually becoming righteous but only declared so.

True! But your error is the assumption that we believe justification STANDS ALONE and is the complete salvation package or that it is possible for it to occur without regeneration and actual transformation of the sinners nature and practice to some extent in time and degree.

Read my lips. Justification is impossible apart from sanctification and glorification is impossible apart from previous justification and sanctification. They cannot be dissected so as to STAND ALONE from each other but neither can they be CONFUSED with each other.

Just admit you are guaranteed salvation by being legaly declared just whether or not you are in actuality just.

Here is the precise point, the crux of your perversion of my position. The only way I could admit what you want, desire and attempt to prove is that I admit that justification can occur apart from regeneration and progressive sanctification and glorification. It cannot possibly occur in a vacuum.

You've just contradicted yourself. You say no but then say Yes.

No, I carefully defined my words and simply contradicted your terms. There are no "brothers" within a child of God but "enemies." Do you understand the distinction between what the term "brother" signifiies versus what the term "enemies" signify??? Apparently not or you would have never used such languague.

Is there or is there not a requirement for sanctification?

That is not the real question. I have already answered that question thoroughly by denying that justification can occur apart from regeneration or actually change of nature. The real question is whether justification IS sanctification and the answer is no! Here is the crime, heresy, perversion of Roman Catholocism. They confuse justification with sanctification in order to teach their works salvation.

So what you are really saying is that there has to be a little sanctification

You tell me! Was there little sanctification in the life of the Theif on the cross versus in Paul? Is there little sanctifiction in the life of a death bed conversion person versus you? You tell me!

So in essense you can let the old man win 99.9999% of the time and guaranteed salvation.

You tell me! In the theif on the cross what percentage of his life was controlled by sin versus saved by grace?

In Hebrews 9:27 who determines the extent of life and thus the extent of spiritual growth possible in one person over another?

In Philippians 2;13 who is it that works in man to produce the willingness and actions to accomplish God's purpose?

In Romans 12:3 and 7 who is it that determines the degree of faith and grace given to one child of God versus another child of God?

In Ephesians 2:10b who is it that has predetermined the works and thus the degree in those "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works"?

In Matthew 5:19 why is one person "least" but still in the kingdom of heaven when they disobey whereas the other is "greater" but still in the kingdom of heaven?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Despite how you try and couch your answers it is clear that you have the same view as the reformers.

Justification is just a legal declaration.

Sanctifcation is not really necissary.

A human being is consisted of two diamentrically opposed natures (when regenerated) where it doesn't really matter which one wins out in this life. Because the good one is downloaded into your makeup. Which makes sanctification not necissary.

You cannot determine your own level of sanctification because only God can do that (why try?)

People aren't in reality righteous but only as a legal fiction

So how are you different from the reformers?

 

[WestminsterMan]

I see! So we must argue from your perspective of the truth. Well, that pretty well shuts down all discussion doesn't it? We simply need to shut up and submit to your perspective of history and doctrine because Rome demands their view is the only right view. Hmmmm, so that puts you in the driving seat and ridicule is the only thing we deserve because there is really nothing to debate about.

Well, until anyone can come up with substantial historical proof (such as the writings of these individuals) which actually connects the Baptist doctrine of today with early Christianity, then - yes - you have pretty much summed it up. Otherwise, one could make a similar claim about the existence of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns with as much authority and believability.

You will please forgive me if I do not bow down and worship your omniscient holiness and gravel at your feet in submission to almighty unerring Rome?

You are forgiven Narcissus.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Despite how you try and couch your answers it is clear that you have the same view as the reformers.

You are intentionally misrepresenting my position to save your own ego. You know fully well I do not believe there can be justification without sanctification - impossible and therefore I do not agree that justification does not accompany transformation in the sinner where real righteousness is imparted.

The problem for you is that my position cannot be successfully repudiated by scripture and you cannot simply classify my position in a category you can mock and scorn.

Justification is just a legal declaration.

true!

Sanctifcation is not really necissary.

False! However, you cannot possibly accept this is my position because it won't fit your presummed classifications for damnation. However, this is precisely what both Paul (Rom. 6:1-11; Eph. 2:10) and James teach (James 1:18-2:32). Where there is justification there is regeneration and "good works" without confusion of distinctions.

A human being is consisted of two diamentrically opposed natures (when regenerated) where it doesn't really matter which one wins out in this life.

False! The present TEMPORAL effects demand it matters (blessings versus chastening and joy, usefulness, assurance, etc.) as well as the loss of eternal rewards demands it does matter here and now.

You cannot determine your own level of sanctification because only God can do that (why try?)

True children of God ALL try even if their attempts are failures much of the time(Rom. 7:18) and they cannot help but continue to try as that is part of their regenerated nature to strive for (Philip. 3:10-12) and because they always will achieve what God does work in them both "to will" and "to do" but according to His good pleasure NOT YOURS!

So how are you different from the reformers?

If you cannot see the difference it is because you INTENTIONALLY choose not to because I have spelled it out repeatedly. The point is that you INTENTIONALLY choose not to see it but choose to REINTERPRET my words to fit your preconcieved MOLD.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are intentionally misrepresenting my position to save your own ego. You know fully well I do not believe there can be justification without sanctification - impossible and therefore I do not agree that justification does not accompany transformation in the sinner where real righteousness is imparted.

I have no ego in this. Just truthful comparisons. I've got nothing to loose if I'm wrong about something. But maybe you do? Now you say you can't have Justification without Sanctification (which I agree with) but hold that

True children of God ALL try even if their attempts are failures much of the time(Rom. 7:18) and they cannot help but continue to try as that is part of their regenerated nature to strive for (Philip. 3:10-12) and because they always will achieve what God does work in them both "to will" and "to do" but according to His good pleasure NOT YOURS!

which simply means when it comes to sanctification you don't need to do anything. You don't need to lead a holy life. Why because whether or not you do God makes you do it despite what you want. So, one you treat humans like robots and two you sanctity isn't acheived its hit or miss according to Gods will so why even try to live a sanctified life? So though you say Justification needs sanctification; you are also saying sanctification isn't really required of the Christian its distributed. So I can be regenerate and live like the devil and say that was God's will!

The problem for you is that my position cannot be successfully repudiated by scripture and you cannot simply classify my position in a category you can mock and scorn

Your position can be reputed by scripture. Matt 5:48; Matthew 19:16-17 ; John 14:15 ; 1 Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 5:6; James 2:24 ; James 2:26

true!

Of course you believe that as did the reformers.

False! However, you cannot possibly accept this is my position because it won't fit your presummed classifications for damnation. However, this is precisely what both Paul (Rom. 6:1-11; Eph. 2:10) and James teach (James 1:18-2:32). Where there is justification there is regeneration and "good works" without confusion of distinctions

If you can't see it now it has to be your position because of how you view Justification, and Sanctification.

If you cannot see the difference it is because you INTENTIONALLY choose not to because I have spelled it out repeatedly. The point is that you INTENTIONALLY choose not to see it but choose to REINTERPRET my words to fit your preconcieved MOLD.

You are the only one who redefines definitions of words to suite your theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

which simply means when it comes to sanctification you don't need to do anything. You don't need to lead a holy life. Why because whether or not you do God makes you do it despite what you want.

So if God works in you both to will and to do something, you really don't ever actually do it???? That is the conclusion of your logic and must be in order to deny that I believe progressive sanctification is not necessary as that is the same as saying I don't believe God is necessary in the work of sanctification. Huh?

If you can't see it now it has to be your position because of how you view Justification, and Sanctification.

Here is the real crux of our disagreement. It is simply my failure to "see" it from YOUR PERPSECTIVE. It "has" to be because your own perception demands it to be. I guess it will do no good to suggest that your perspective may be all fouled up by Rome's complete misinterpetation of scriptures??? No, I don't think you will admit that. So we must bow down and kiss the popes feet and grovel before him and submit to omniscient infallible Rome?!? It will be a cold day in hell before that ever happens.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, until anyone can come up with substantial historical proof (such as the writings of these individuals) which actually connects the Baptist doctrine of today with early Christianity, then - yes - you have pretty much summed it up. Otherwise, one could make a similar claim about the existence of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns with as much authority and believability.

Ok, I understand. No one can question the selection of materials and interpretations of Catholic monks any more than anyone can question the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church without their own personal qualifications be questioned and ridiculed! I get it!

However, there are literally dozens of independent historians who do question and reinterpret historical sources differently than Rome regardless of such redicule leveled at them by Roman defenders "existence of fairies, unicorns and leprechauns".

In reality, it is the selective sources and interpretation of Rome in both doctrine and history that has the ring of "existence of fairies, unicorns and leprechauns."

 

[Yeshua1]

No. But that accurately discribes your line of questioning.



My line of questioning is determining your belief with regards to what the reformers said which you said you don't adhere to!!!

Let me ask you another question. Does regeneration free you of sin in this life? Or are you able to still sin and if you do still sin then how do you look at justification? It is clear that you by your own admission hold to Justification as only a legal declaration and only at one point in time. You also hold to Once Saved Always Saved which must by its approach question the necessity of sanctification.


You're own definition does that for you. I had nothing to do with it.


Its your claimed view.


Do you believe that Justification is at one point in time?

Do you believe that you can sin even after you've been regenerated?

Its not a game its questioning to determine how in line you are with the reformers.


Same thing the reformers said. Therefore justification isn't someone actually becoming righteous but only declared so.


Just admit you are guaranteed salvation by being legaly declared just whether or not you are in actuality just.



You've just contradicted yourself. You say no but then say Yes.


That wasn't a question. But the question wasn't answered. Is there or is there not a requirement for sanctification?


Ok so you are two people the regenerated man and the old man and both are in a wrestling contest. Still doesn't answer the question.


So what you are really saying is that there has to be a little sanctification or let the regenerated man win once in a long while determined by how much God wants him to win of the Old man in the life he's given to the single christian. So in reality all you require is just enough sanctification and that is only determined by God. In otherwords there is no real requirement for sanctification or to by an act of your will put to death the old man and live a sanctified life. So in essense you can let the old man win 99.9999% of the time and guaranteed salvation. In fact, you can at the outset of your regeneration live rightly for 1 hour (because that is God's will for your level of sanctification) and spend the rest of your life in opposition to God's life giving righteousness and still enter heaven.

So how are you any different from the reformers?

What does the bible state that we MUST do in order to be freely justified and saved by God?

JUST believe on the Lord jesus and His death as atonement for your own sins, and God freely calls the sinner a saint, grants him a new nature, and grants him the holy spirit, which is the power to live now as one should!

 

[The Biblicist]

What does the bible state that we MUST do in order to be freely justified and saved by God?

JUST believe on the Lord jesus and His death as atonement for your own sins, and God freely calls the sinner a saint, grants him a new nature, and grants him the holy spirit, which is the power to live now as one should!

Roman Catholics do not understand the Biblical distinction between justifying faith and sanctifying faith. The impasse is that they fail to recognize that faith in connection with justification is passive in regard to righteousness revealed in the gospel and simply receives and rests upon the finished work of Christ in their behalf as the basis of justification before God. Whereas, the same faith that rests and receives justification by Christ's finished substititonary work is thereby, consequently motivated by regenerative love and the power of the indwelling Spirit to "will" and "do" God's good pleasure as it is revealed to them in God's Word.

I place this problem before them in the thread entitled "The Abrahamic Problem" where Paul definitively denies that justifying faith is inclusive any kind of active participation with God or active contributions to God in obtaining the promise and provision for justification but is wholly dependent upon the power of God to provide the promise of God (Rom. 4:21). Hence, justification by faith is without their works of ANY KIND.

 

[The Biblicist]

Roman Catholics do not understand the Biblical distinction between justifying faith and sanctifying faith. The impasse is that they fail to recognize that faith in connection with justification is passive in regard to righteousness revealed in the gospel and simply receives and rests upon the finished work of Christ in their behalf as the basis of justification before God. Whereas, the same faith that rests and receives justification by Christ's finished substititonary work is thereby, consequently motivated by regenerative love and the power of the indwelling Spirit to "will" and "do" God's good pleasure as it is revealed to them in God's Word.

I place this problem before them in the thread entitled "The Abrahamic Problem" where Paul definitively denies that justifying faith is inclusive any kind of active participation with God or active contributions to God in obtaining the promise and provision for justification but is wholly dependent upon the power of God to provide the promise of God (Rom. 4:21). Hence, justification by faith is without their works of ANY KIND.

Rome confuses justifying faith with sanctifying faith. Justifying faith is in relationship to the declaration of the gospel and by necessity of the very nature of the gospel must be completely passive in regard to any kind of personal activity or contributions or participation in obtaining the propitiation that the gospel reveals has already been obtained and can only be obtained solely and only by the personal activity, contributions and participation of Jesus Christ for his people and in the place of his people. Justifying faith embraces, accepts and rests entirely upon that good news as either failure to receive it or any exerted action to acheive what the Christ already acheived is disobedience to the gospel. Receiving, embracing and resting upon it is obedience to the gospel. This is the "rest" Jesus calls His people unto.

In contrast, sanctifying faith is the SAME FAITH but not in response or in relationship to the things only Christ could provide as revealed in the gospel but in regard to the things revealed in God's word that we are commanded to obey in our own person and in our own life by means of regenerative love and the indwelling power of the Spirit of God.

The former type of faith would be disobedience and rejection of the finished work of Christ if it included our own works whereas the latter would be disobedience and rejection of the revealed will of God if we did not include our own works.

 

[Yeshua1]

Roman Catholics do not understand the Biblical distinction between justifying faith and sanctifying faith. The impasse is that they fail to recognize that faith in connection with justification is passive in regard to righteousness revealed in the gospel and simply receives and rests upon the finished work of Christ in their behalf as the basis of justification before God. Whereas, the same faith that rests and receives justification by Christ's finished substititonary work is thereby, consequently motivated by regenerative love and the power of the indwelling Spirit to "will" and "do" God's good pleasure as it is revealed to them in God's Word.

I place this problem before them in the thread entitled "The Abrahamic Problem" where Paul definitively denies that justifying faith is inclusive any kind of active participation with God or active contributions to God in obtaining the promise and provision for justification but is wholly dependent upon the power of God to provide the promise of God (Rom. 4:21). Hence, justification by faith is without their works of ANY KIND.

isn't the time when the christian will be "infused" in some sense as they see it, when we have obtained sinles state and fully right to God is called 'Glorification?"

 

[The Biblicist]

isn't the time when the christian will be "infused" in some sense as they see it, when we have obtained sinles state and fully right to God is called 'Glorification?"

Regeneration is the impartation or renewing of the image of God within us in "true holiness and righteousness" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and is an INWARD "washing and regeneration by the Holy Ghost" (Tit. 3:5) that produces a "new" inward man or "new creation" and it is regeneration or this creative work of God that isthe source of "good works" - "For we are his workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." This is making the tree good so it can produce good fruit.

This good fruit is NEVER manifested in the life of the regenerated/justified person in its FULLNESS or SINLESS PERFECTION but is manifested depending upon the extent of life for its growth and degree determined by the measure of faith and grace and only brought to completion in glorification.

There is no such thing as a justified man by faith without works apart from a regenerated man created "unto good works."

Rome fails to distinguish between the two and charges us with denying one or the other.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rome confuses justifying faith with sanctifying faith. Justifying faith is in relationship to the declaration of the gospel and by necessity of the very nature of the gospel must be completely passive and without any actions in regard to any kind of personal participant activity or contributions in obtaining the propitiation that the gospel reveals has already been obtained and can only be obtained solely and only by the personal activity, contributions and participation of Jesus Christ for his people and in the place of his people. Justifying faith embraces, accepts and rests entirely upon that good news as either failure to receive it or any exerted action to acheive what the Christ already acheived is disobedience to the gospel. Receiving, embracing and resting upon it is obedience to the gospel. This is the "rest" Jesus calls His people unto.

In contrast, sanctifying faith is the SAME FAITH but not in response or in relationship to the things only Christ could provide as revealed in the gospel but in regard to the things revealed in God's word that we are commanded to obey in our own person and in our own life by means of regenerative love and the indwelling power of the Spirit of God.

The former type of faith would be disobedience and rejection of the finished work of Christ if it included our own participantive works whereas the latter would be disobedience and rejection of the revealed will of God if we did not include our own participantive works.

TS would you at least admit that the above statement is a direct repudiation of what you understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation?

 

[Yeshua1]

TS would you at least admit that the above statement is a direct repudiation of what you understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation?

Can anyone answer when a catholic considers themselves to be 'saved", and what they had to do in order to get that state?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS would you at least admit that the above statement is a direct repudiation of what you understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation?

I'm not even bother reading it as you've already demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding how we view sacraments.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Can anyone answer when a catholic considers themselves to be 'saved", and what they had to do in order to get that state?

I'm saved. I'm being saved, and I will be saved.

I am secure in the fact that as long as I remain in him he will abide in me and eternal life is assured.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not even bother reading it as you've already demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding how we view sacraments.

You have answered it by this very response!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm saved. I'm being saved, and I will be saved.

I am secure in the fact that as long as I remain in him he will abide in me and eternal life is assured.

what did you do to get saved? How did it happen, what happened?

You were once in sin, what happened to save you?