# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Are You Catholic?

## Sola_Fide

> *Are You Catholic?*
> 
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that the grace of God in your heart is able to make you acceptable to God? _____Yes _____No
> 
> 
> 2. Does God justify a person by putting Christs righteousness into his heart?_____Yes    _____No
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=213

----------


## qh4dotcom

I can't trust all the BS brainwashed sheeple invent about God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I can't trust all the BS brainwashed sheeple invent about God.


I wholeheartedly agree.  I want to truly know what God had said in His Word, not what men have twisted it to mean.

----------


## TER

> The first aspect of salvation—election—is God’s choosing those who would be saved.
> 
> 
> Election occurred before the creation of the world. It is wholly outside of our experience.
> 
> 
> The second aspect of salvation is the Gospel—the sinless life, innocent death, and triumphant resurrection of Jesus Christ on behalf of those whom God the Father chose to save.
> 
> 
> ...


Funny how the only responsibility we have is number 3.

When you say 'most churches' what you are really saying is, most churches which do not consider John Calvin to be a Father of the Church and do not ascribe to his innovative interpretations.

And these other (older) churches do not ignore anything in the Bible.  Indeed they consider those who wrote those writings to be Holy Saints of God.

It is rather the followers of Calvin (a man who became a murderer at the height of his religious fame and popularity) who ignore the Gospel teachings (and especially, number 3, the ONLY one listed in which we have any personal part to play in).

Oh the irony.

(didn't want to start this with you right now Sola Fide what with the holiday's coming up, but you called out the Catholics first when you should instead be concentrating on your own sins)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Funny how the only responsibility we have is number 3.
> 
> When you say 'most churches' what you are really saying is, most churches which do not consider John Calvin to be a Father of the Church and do not ascribe to his innovative interpretations.
> 
> And these other (older) churches do not ignore anything in the Bible.  Indeed they consider those who wrote those writings to be Holy Saints of God.
> 
> It is rather the followers of Calvin (a man who became a murderer at the height of his religious fame and popularity) who ignore the Gospel teachings (and especially, number 3, the ONLY one listed in which we have any part of at all).
> 
> Oh the irony.
> ...


What are you calling me out on exactly?  

I am contending that the Bible teaches that a man is saved by what God has accomplished on the cross, not what happens inside a man.  The basis of salvation is something that happens wholly outside of a man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Funny how the only responsibility we have is number 3.


Actually, sanctification is wholly an act of God as well.  Salvation is all of God, and none of man.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I wholeheartedly agree.  I want to truly know what God had said in His Word, not what men have twisted it to mean.


Me too.

----------


## TER

> The basis of salvation is something that happens wholly outside of a man.


How can our salvation happen wholly outside of ourselves?  What kind of oxymoron is that?  If someone believes that, then they have little clue in how the Incarnate Word of God saves us- ALL of us, our _entire_ being, body, soul and spirit.  Indeed, through Christ our entire being is saved and deified by His Holy Spirit, where we experience eternity, the infinite, and timelessness, where we put on Christ and become partakers of the divine nature and enter the Kingdom of Heaven, just as it is described in the Holy Scriptures.  Salvation is not something that happens wholly outside of a man (a teachings never once taught in the first 1500 years of the history of the Church).  The complete opposite!  Indeed, it is the most intimate, most personal thing we can know and experience, a condition we can become by the grace of God upon us, infusing our very nature with the divine light of the His eternal being.  This is the faith from the beginning, the very fundamental teachings from the beginning of the history of Christianity which some have ignored and instead hedged their bets on winning some lucky election into a secret club and following a man 1600 years after the Day of Pentecost, (a murderer no less), who taught something which has no basis or foundation in the history of the teachings of Christ.  Do some not see how their choice of following this man puts them squarely against the Holy Spirit?  And to boot, they worship God to be a vengeful, bloodthirsty, merciless monster!  Why?  So that they don't have to pray for those less fortunate and the sinners and unbelievers of the world, fixating on select verses in the Bible and ignoring the greater and most important ones, those teachings of Christ which squarely make THEM responsible for their sins and their acts and THEM accountable for the works they have done as well as the works_ they should have done_ to those around them.

----------


## Dr.3D

I've always wondered about Matthew 23:9

----------


## VIDEODROME

I'm gonna sleep in on Sunday.  You guys can work this out.

----------


## TER

> I've always wondered about Matthew 23:9


Have you wondered about 1 Cornithians 4:14-15?  Or are we going to just post select verses and ignore the rest of the verses?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can our salvation happen wholly outside of ourselves?


Christians are justified (made right in the sight of God) by something that happens outside of them...what God has accomplished on the cross:




> *Romans 5:9
> 
> Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.*


We are made right in the sight of God by what Jesus did for His elect people on the cross, not by anything in us.










> What kind of oxymoron is that?  If someone believes that, then they have little clue in how the Incarnate Word of God saves us- ALL of us, our _entire_ being, body, soul and spirit.  Indeed, through Christ our entire being is saved and deified by His Holy Spirit, where we experience eternity, the infinite, and timelessness, where we put on Christ and become partakers of the divine nature and enter the Kingdom of Heaven, just as it is described in the Holy Scriptures.  Salvation is not something that happens wholly outside of a man *(a teachings never once taught in the first 1500 years of the history of the Church*).


This argument of yours that you use all the time is not convincing to me.  I want to know what the Bible says, not what "church teaching" is.  








> The complete opposite!  Indeed, it is the most intimate, most personal thing we can know and experience, a condition we can become by the grace of God upon us, infusing our very nature with the divine light of the His eternal being.


This is the opposite of what the Bible teaches, and is highlighted in the OP.  The righteousness of Christ is not_ infused_ into a Christian, it is _accounted_ to a Christian. 

We are made righteous, not by our works or_ even God's works in us_, but by Him pardoning our sins:




> *Romans 4:5
> 
> But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,*













> This is the faith from the beginning, the very fundamental teachings from the beginning of the history of Christianity which some have ignored and instead hedged their bets on winning some lucky election into a secret club and following a man 1600 years after the Day of Pentecost, (a murderer no less), who taught something which has no basis or foundation in the history of the teachings of Christ.  Do some not see how their choice of following this man puts them squarely against the Holy Spirit?


There you go again.  You keep saying that Calvin made up this new faith or whatever.  I never bring up Calvin and I don't care about Calvin.  There are things I disagree with Calvin on, I'd be happy to tell you all the ways in which I disagree with Calvin sometime.

I care what Jesus and the apostles preached.  Period.  Jesus and the apostles both taught election and predestination, therefore it is true.

Jesus said:



> *John 6:44 
> 
> "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."*





> *"But there are some of you who do not believe. 
> 
> For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 
> 
> And He was saying, For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.*











> And to boot, they worship God to be a vengeful, bloodthirsty, merciless monster!  Why?  So that they don't have to pray for those less fortunate and the sinners and unbelievers of the world.  Fixating on select verses in the Bible and ignoring the greater and most important ones, those teachings which squarely make THEM responsible for their sins and acts and accountable for the works they have done and the works they should have done to those around them.


I'm not sure what you mean here.  Could you explain further how you think this applies to me?  Thanks.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I can't trust all the BS brainwashed sheeple invent about God.





> I wholeheartedly agree.  I want to truly know what God had said in His Word, not what men have twisted it to mean.


ummmm..... i think you missed his point.

----------


## TER

> I'm not sure what you mean here.  Could you explain further how you think this applies to me?  Thanks.


Actually, no, I rather not.  I have said what I had to say in this thread, and indeed, probably more then I should have.  You do and believe as you wish.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Have you wondered about 1 Cornithians 4:14-15?  Or are we going to just post select verses and ignore the rest of the verses?


Well, I've read Clarke's Commentary, Barnes' Notes, Wesley's Notes and Matthew Henry Notes on the selected verse and just wondered if anybody had anything more on the subject.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Four hundred years ago the religious world was involved in the greatest religious conflict that this world has ever witnessed. A tremendous number of books have recorded a blow-by-blow account of the epic Catholic-Protestant struggle. Yet, after more than four centuries have gone by, the professed sons of the Reformation generally have very little idea of the real issues of the conflict. If you ask a Protestant what Roman Catholics teach concerning justification, you will most likely be told that Catholics believe that a sinner may be justified by his own works of merit. But listen to what an authoritative Catholic catechism teaches:
> 
> 
> *Q.* What is justification?
> 
> *A.* It is a grace which makes us friends of God.
> 
> *Q.* Can a sinner merit this justifying grace?
> 
> ...


http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Chu...ification.html

----------


## Tpoints

> I wholeheartedly agree.  I want to truly know what God had said in His Word, not what men have twisted it to mean.


How do you know that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How do you know that?


How do I know what?

----------


## Tpoints

> How do I know what?


oh sorry, I misread what you wrote, you said "I want to truly know what God had said in His Word", I thought you said you do/did. So my question is : how would you know?

----------


## BuddyRey

<==== liberal Quaker, with Taoist influences.

----------


## Tpoints

> <==== liberal Quaker, with Taoist influences.


this one's for you!
http://dudeism.com/

----------


## BuddyRey

> this one's for you!
> http://dudeism.com/


Oh yeah!  We're definitely on the same wavelength.  I love Dudeism!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> oh sorry, I misread what you wrote, you said "I want to truly know what God had said in His Word", I thought you said you do/did. So my question is : how would you know?


Are you asking "is it possible that God can convey truth to man"?  Or are you asking "is it possible to read God's Word so as to understand that it affirms some things and rejects other things"?  The answer to both of these questions is yes.


The OP contends that at one of the central doctrines of the Bible, how a man is made right before God, Roman Catholicism gets it wrong:



> In the Roman Catholic Church, “justification” means God’s actually making a man innocent, God’s working in a man’s heart. The church changed “grace,” an attribute of God, his undeserved mercy and favor, into a quality of man. The Roman Church taught—and still teaches today—a different gospel: men are justified by God’s grace in their hearts. That is not the Gospel proclaimed by the apostles. The Roman Church teaches that the correct answer to both questions above is yes. Its teaching is accepted by many who think they are Christians, many who do not even belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say?
> 
> The Bible teaches that believers in Christ are saved, not because of good works, good intentions, religious experiences, or religious rituals – not even because of what the Holy Spirit has done in their hearts – but solely and only because of what Christ did 2,000 years ago when he carried out the plan of God in salvation. Jesus Christ lived a perfect and sinless life, thus fulfilling the demands of God’s law for his people. He died a substitutionary death, taking the punishment that his people deserve for their sins. He came to life again the third day, proving that God was satisfied with his perfect life and sacrifice.
> 
> The Gospel of Jesus Christ is objective. It is about things that happen wholly outside of us, not about our subjective feelings, experiences, or works.
> 
> Paul summarizes the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, and he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”
> ...

----------


## oyarde

Am I ? , no , I am not.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Without making any sort of statement on sects or denominations or factions, one thing I can state with an extreme level of confidence is that the Judgement Seat of Christ is not going to be a grammar quiz.

I admit that I am often profoundly bemused at the people who rest salvation on men's understanding, and then claim to discern the difference based on whether someone is 'clothed' in righteousness or has righteousness 'imputed.'  

The faith in and service to God and Christ, I assure you is much more visceral than disputes over grammar and syntax.  Salvation is a heart condition, and being moved in the Spirit and wholly given to Christ is not negated by an ignorance of attributing the wrong formula of descriptive words.

Salvation is not some hyper-technical super-detailed arcane formulation of secret hidden logic anymore than it is some paganistic 'magic incantation.'  Strikes me that hypertechnicality is akin to shutting 'off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.'

----------


## amy31416

I propose that Sola_Fide is bored and is using incendiary notions to kick up a philosophical fight.

You've mentioned over and over that you don't think Catholics are Christians, so what? Some people don't think Mormons, Protestants or Jehovah's Witnesses are either. You aren't going to "convert" any Catholics here--there aren't that many.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I propose that Sola_Fide is bored and is using incendiary notions to kick up a philosophical fight.


I'll 2nd that proposal.

Actions speak louder than words.

Get out of your head for a while and go do something worthwhile for **someone else** - and don't tell anyone about it.

----------


## BuddyRey

> Without making any sort of statement on sects or denominations or factions, one thing I can state with an extreme level of confidence is that the Judgement Seat of Christ is not going to be a grammar quiz.
> 
> I admit that I am often profoundly bemused at the people who rest salvation on men's understanding, and then claim to discern the difference based on whether someone is 'clothed' in righteousness or has righteousness 'imputed.'  
> 
> The faith in and service to God and Christ, I assure you is much more visceral than disputes over grammar and syntax.  Salvation is a heart condition, and being moved in the Spirit and wholly given to Christ is not negated by an ignorance of attributing the wrong formula of descriptive words.
> 
> Salvation is not some hyper-technical super-detailed arcane formulation of secret hidden logic anymore than it is some paganistic 'magic incantation.'  Strikes me that hypertechnicality is akin to shutting 'off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.'


Wish I could +rep this multiple times!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I propose that Sola_Fide is bored and is using incendiary notions to kick up a philosophical fight.
> 
> You've mentioned over and over that you don't think Catholics are Christians, so what? Some people don't think Mormons, Protestants or Jehovah's Witnesses are either. You aren't going to "convert" any Catholics here--there aren't that many.


True, I won't convert anyone and I don't wish to convert anyone.  But the Bible says that its not in my power to do that anyway.  I simply lay out the truth (as imperfectly as I do it), and God is the one who opens people's eyes to the gospel. 


There are people that read these boards who have never even heard the gospel before.  There are people who have gone to the Roman Catholic Church their entire lives and have never heard the gospel that Paul preached--Christ's imputed righteousness.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Without making any sort of statement on sects or denominations or factions, one thing I can state with an extreme level of confidence is that the Judgement Seat of Christ is not going to be a grammar quiz.
> 
> I admit that I am often profoundly bemused at the people who rest salvation on men's understanding, and then claim to discern the difference based on whether someone is 'clothed' in righteousness or has righteousness 'imputed.'  
> 
> The faith in and service to God and Christ, I assure you is much more visceral than disputes over grammar and syntax.  Salvation is a heart condition, and being moved in the Spirit and wholly given to Christ is not negated by an ignorance of attributing the wrong formula of descriptive words.
> 
> Salvation is not some hyper-technical super-detailed arcane formulation of secret hidden logic anymore than it is some paganistic 'magic incantation.'  Strikes me that hypertechnicality is akin to shutting 'off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.'


But this question of infused righteousness and imputed righteousness was the central question of the Reformation.  There was a time when these "theological hypertechnicalities" were the concern of people everywhere.  This separation changed the world and led to the formation of civilizations.  These ideas laid the foundation for freedom, and that is why we so earnestly need the gospel of imputed righteousness again today.

But apart from this, the Scriptures make it so clear that what we believe is of the first importance:




> * Hebrews 3:14 NIV
> 
> We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.*





> * 1 Timothy 4:16 NIV
> 
> Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.*



If you read the book of Galatians for example, what was Paul was so angry about?  Why was Paul anathematizing people and confronting Peter to his face?  It wasn't because of some sin, _it was because they were turning away from the gospel._. They were turning away from what they had believed.  




> * Galatians 1:6-9 NIV
> 
> I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!*



What was this good news?



> * 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 NIV
> 
> Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,*



It's what we believe, its our doctrine, its the object and content of our faith that is the issue, not our works.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But this question of infused righteousness and imputed righteousness was the central question of the Reformation.  There was a time when these "theological hypertechnicalities" were the concern of people everywhere.  This separation changed the world and led to the formation of civilizations.  These ideas laid the foundation for freedom, and that is why we so earnestly need the gospel of imputed righteousness again today.
> 
> But apart from this, the Scriptures make it so clear that what we believe is of the first importance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can do that too:

Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment. “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” [NASB]


Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." [NASB]


Galatians 5:13-15 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. [NASB]


1Cor 13:12-13 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. [NASB]


Being a Christian is about being Christ-like and allowing one's self to be moved by the Spirit.  Christ-likeness is loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, and being moved by the Spirit is to hear the voice of God and submit to it.

You act as though one has to have an extremely technical understanding of theological doctrine else the soul is consigned to hell.  Considering that we are told that we now only see a dim reflection of the truth of God, which we will later see in full clarity, it would seem to be a capricious arbitrary and unreasonable God that requires perfect knowledge while at the same time telling us that no person can even have such perfect knowledge in the first place.

You talk as though you deprecate works as contributing to salvation, and then you make knowledge itself into a work that develops salvation.

You can't see the forest for the trees.  A Christian is someone who is a model of Christ in our lost and dying world.  Salvation is being wholly given to God in Christ and accepting (allowing) the power of the Holy Spirit to transform us according to His will.  The fruit of salvation is revealed in the Christ-like works that we do in the world around us.  The bitter, prideful "I am holier than thou" attitude of superior knowledge and superior election is certainly not a fruit of the Spirit.  Even if you DID have some special secret-handshake knowledge of the Kingdom, you are driving people away from it in your overt displays of prideful superiority that is anything but Christ-like.

Salvation is not a grammar quiz, it's a heart condition.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

I spent decades as a Roman Catholic.  During that time there was a "charasmatic renewal", Vatican II,  a renewal of "orthodox" practices, ie. daily Mass, daily rosary, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, weekly Confession.  The Liturgy for Sunday Mass is similar in most churches and yet quite diverse.  

Through those years most Catholics simply learned to know and love Jesus Christ.  All faiths are imperfect in their understanding of Scripture and living out a life of Grace in the Gospel.  We are the sum of many parts.  

The number of translations of Scripture is mind boggling, and interpretation is a life time of joyful study.

So, Enjoying a Life in Christ is not Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist, etc.  It is a daily walk, not an easy one, and filled with bittersweet experiences along the way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I can do that too:
> 
> Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment. “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” [NASB]
> 
> 
> Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." [NASB]
> 
> 
> Galatians 5:13-15 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. [NASB]
> ...


Hmmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean to say with those verses.  With the first verse about loving the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength...are you saying it is possible to do that?  Who in the history of mankind has loved the Lord with all their heart, mind, and strength?  Or was Jesus giving that impossible-to-keep law for some other reason (i.e. teaching men that salvation comes from Him alone and nothing in man)?










> Being a Christian is about being Christ-like and allowing one's self to be moved by the Spirit.  Christ-likeness is loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, and being moved by the Spirit is to hear the voice of God and submit to it.


You're talking about the Christian life, sanctification, but that's not what the OP was talking about.  The OP is talking about justification.  Justification (how we are made right in God's sight by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and our sins to Christ) does not happen in the life of man. Justification happens wholly outside of a man.









> You act as though one has to have an extremely technical understanding of theological doctrine else the soul is consigned to hell.  Considering that we are told that we now only see a dim reflection of the truth of God, which we will later see in full clarity, it would seem to be a capricious arbitrary and unreasonable God that requires perfect knowledge while at the same time telling us that no person can even have such perfect knowledge in the first place.


A technical understanding is not required for salvation.  Nothing is required for salvation.  God saves men by His grace alone.  But as far as saving faith is concerned, true saving faith is assent to the propositions of the gospel.  And these propositions are certain things, and they are not other things.

True saving faith cannot be that "the grace in my heart makes me acceptable to God".  That cannot be saving faith because it is not Biblical.  True saving faith says "the only thing that makes me acceptable in God's sight is the blood of Christ".







> You talk as though you deprecate works as contributing to salvation, and then you make knowledge itself into a work that develops salvation.


Man is not saved BY his faith, but he is saved THROUGH his faith. And this faith is a gift of God's grace that He gives a man when He is saved.  One of the qualities of saving faith is a trust in Christ's blood alone for salvation.  A quality of a non-saving faith is a trust in something other than Christ's blood alone for salvation.










> You can't see the forest for the trees.  A Christian is someone who is a model of Christ in our lost and dying world.  Salvation is being wholly given to God in Christ and accepting (allowing) the power of the Holy Spirit to transform us according to His will.  The fruit of salvation is revealed in the Christ-like works that we do in the world around us.  The bitter, prideful "I am holier than thou" attitude of superior knowledge and superior election is certainly not a fruit of the Spirit.  Even if you DID have some special secret-handshake knowledge of the Kingdom, you are driving people away from it in your overt displays of prideful superiority that is anything but Christ-like.
> 
> Salvation is not a grammar quiz, it's a heart condition.



This is more about the Christian life, or sanctification.  We weren't talking about sanctification, but about justification.  The OP explains the difference:



> The Bible presents three aspects of God’s work of salvation:
> 
> *1*. God the Father planned the salvation of his people before time began.
> 
> *2*. God the Son came to Earth in Jesus Christ and accomplished salvation for his people by living a perfect life and dying an innocent death.
> 
> *3*. God the Holy Spirit gives to God’s people the gifts Christ earned by his innocent life and substituting death.
> 
> The first aspect of salvation—election—is God’s choosing those who would be saved.
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> ummmm..... i think you missed his point.


+rep

_James 1:27

27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world._

Oh, but let's argue about what each other's abstract beliefs are and ignore what God the Father actually calls true religion.  And folks wonder why Christians are being taken less and less seriously.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> +rep
> 
> _James 1:27
> 
> 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world._
> 
> Oh, but let's argue about what each other's abstract beliefs are and ignore what God the Father actually calls true religion.  And folks wonder why Christians are being taken less and less seriously.



This isn't abstract.  This the gospel of imputed righteousness that Paul taught in the books of Romans and Galatians.  

There is no other gospel than this, even if an angel from heaven came down and preached it to you.

----------


## jmdrake

> This isn't abstract.  This the gospel of imputed righteousness that Paul taught in the books of Romans and Galatians.  
> 
> There is no other gospel than this, even if an angel from heaven came down and preached it to you.


I was being kind.   You follow a false belief that requires you to ignore parts of the Bible that you disagree with and misquote Jesus and twist His words to the point where they would be unrecognizable to someone who didn't take the time to look up the context.  Christianity starts with Jesus and works out from there.  Paul is to be understood in light of the gospels and not the other way around.  You do not have the true religion James talked about or the love Jesus talked about or the desire to do the will of His Father.  Jesus made it clear in Matthew 7:21 _"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven._ 

The path you are on will not lead you to heaven no matter hard you try to argue it.  And note, this isn't "salvation by works".  You can't do anything good on your own.  This is salvation by relationship.  If you have a relationship with Jesus you will *want* to obey Him.  It's not "I must obey Jesus to get Him to love me".  It is "I love Jesus because He loves me and that love motivates me to want to obey Him."  You don't understand this.  You *can't* understand it because spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

----------


## Kotin

> +rep
> 
> _James 1:27
> 
> 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world._
> 
> Oh, but let's argue about what each other's abstract beliefs are and ignore what God the Father actually calls true religion.  And folks wonder why Christians are being taken less and less seriously.


if followers of christ would listen to this and stop much of the other stuff, they would actually get somewhere.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I was being kind.   You follow a false belief that requires you to ignore parts of the Bible that you disagree with and misquote Jesus and twist His words to the point where they would be unrecognizable to someone who didn't take the time to look up the context.  Christianity starts with Jesus and works out from there.  Paul is to be understood in light of the gospels and not the other way around.  You do not have the true religion James talked about or the love Jesus talked about or the desire to do the will of His Father.  Jesus made it clear in Matthew 7:21 _"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven._


That's right.  Only those who do the will of the Father (which is to obey the law perfectly) will enter heaven.  This is the same thing Paul talks about in Romans 2.  You have to be a _doer_ of the law to be in heaven, not just a hearer.

What is the point? _ No one can do what God requires of them._  Jesus was, here again, trying to teach that you must be without blemish to stand before the Father.  Jesus was teaching them that their own obedience is not even close to enough to enter heaven. You can't just be a hearer of the law,_ you actually have to do it_, and do it perfectly.  Since this is impossible, salvation must come from God alone.

Jesus' death fulfills the righteous requirements of the law on behalf of those who have been regenerated by the Spirit:



> *Romans 8:3-4
> 
> And so He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.*


God justifies His elect, completely outside of our experience.  He did it on the cross, not "in our hearts":



> *Colossians 2:13-15 
> 
> When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.*












> The path you are on will not lead you to heaven no matter hard you try to argue it.  And note, this isn't "salvation by works".  You can't do anything good on your own.


This is exactly the false gospel that the OP refutes.  This is the same thing Roman Catholicism teaches, that God gives you grace so that you can keep the commandments and merit your own salvation.  This is a false gospel because the Bible never teaches that men are infused with grace and thereby become good law-keepers.  The Bible teaches that the works of the law will never justify anyone before God, _not even our sanctified works._  The Bible teaches that the righteousness of Christ is credited, or imputed to a man's account, and his legal debt of sin is forgiven...not infused into him:




> *Romans 4:4-5
> 
> Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.  However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 
> *












> This is salvation by relationship. If you have a relationship with Jesus you will *want* to obey Him.  It's not "I must obey Jesus to get Him to love me".  It is "I love Jesus because He loves me and that love motivates me to want to obey Him."  You don't understand this.  You *can't* understand it because spiritual things are spiritually discerned.


Yep, that is the popular false gospel that is around today.  But Paul never uses that language and he never uses those concepts.  Why?  Because the "relationship" gospel is just another false gospel of works.   It doesn't understand the law, which requires absolute obedience, and it teaches that men must do something to attain salvation.   

How do men "enter in" to this "relationship"?  By some acting of their faith.  In other words, by some work they do.  

But Paul says that nothing in man is the cause of his salvation, _even man's faith itself is a gift:_



> *Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.*

----------


## jmdrake

> That's right.  Only those who do the will of the Father (which is to obey the law perfectly) will enter heaven.  This is the same thing Paul talks about in Romans 2.  You have to be a _doer_ of the law to be in heaven, not just a hearer.
> 
> What is the point? _ No one can do what God requires of them._  Jesus was, here again, trying to teach that you must be without blemish to stand before the Father.  Jesus was teaching them that their own obedience is not even close to enough to enter heaven. You can't just be a hearer of the law,_ you actually have to do it_, and do it perfectly.  Since this is impossible, salvation must come from God alone.


What part of Philippians 4:13 do you *not* understand?

_I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me._ 

Your belief system makes a fool out of God and a liar out of Paul.  You don't believe that you will be sinning in heaven correct?  Do you not understand that the kingdom of heaven begins on earth *in your heart*?

Luke 17:21 _Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you._

Heaven is where God is.  And God desires to live inside of you.  *That* is the gospel.  The great God of the universe wants to call your mind His home.  When He makes your mind His home He causes you to both *will and do* (Philippians 2:13) His good pleasure.  That's when you can have true religion because you will really care about the widows and the orphans and others that God really cares about.  

Do you think He'll share that home with another master?  No.  He will not.  It is wrong of you to expect Him to.  There is nothing in the Bible to back up your belief that Christ cannot live out His perfect life in you as opposed to merely covering your ongoing imperfection.  It's true that this change Jesus will work in you is not overnight.  But God's word is true.  

2 Corinthians 3:18 _And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit._

As the old folks said "I'm not yet what I ought to be but thank God I'm not what I used to be."  You asked me once if I still had lustful thoughts as if you had a reason to condemn me.  But that just shows how little you know about salvation.  The question isn't whether I've reached perfection, but whether I am growing in Christ, whether I am being transformed.  I can honestly say that I am.  Can you?

You have falsely claimed that I didn't understand justification versus sanctification.  I do.  Sanctification is the process of being transformed into the likeness of Jesus.  You are justified when you let Jesus have your heart.  Then the sanctification process begins.  Jesus is both the author *and the finisher* of the Christian faith.  You just want Him to be the author and you deny He has the power to be the finisher.  Paul said to turn away from people like you who have a form of godliness, but deny God's power.  I do not know what demons you are holding onto, what cherished sin that you are afraid Jesus will root out of your life if you let Him have it.  Why does the thought of Jesus leading you to a life of loving obedience pain you so?  Why is that something that you fight with every fiber of your being to the point of making God a liar?  I don't understand.  Jesus said clearly that if you loved Him, you would keep His commandments, and yet you believe the opposite, that those who seek the will of Christ are not of Christ.  That's just backwards.  Twist scripture all you want, fool yourself all you want, but even your fellow Calvinists on this forum disagree with your position.  You stick to it at your own peril.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What part of Philippians 4:13 do you *not* understand?
> 
> _I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me._





> *Philippians 4:12-13 NIV
> 
> I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
> *


Paul is talking about physical conditions, like him being in chains or hungry.  Whatever he is going through, Christ gives him strength to go through it.

This has nothing to do with following the law, and frankly what a blasphemous and prideful thing to say....that you could follow God's righteous commands.  That is nothing less than spitting in the face of God and disregarding the blood of Jesus:



> *
> 
> Galatians 2:21 NIV
> 
> I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"*


You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that.  _How many times have you sinned in the past hour???_  No Christian man could ever say what you just typed.


















> Heaven is where God is.  And God desires to live inside of you.  *That* is the gospel.


No it isn't.  This the gospel:



> *1 Corinthians 15:1-4 NIV
> 
> Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,*


The gospel, or good news, is Christ dying for the sins of His people.  There is nothing about "making Jesus Lord" or "accept Jesus in your heart" or "God wants to live inside you" in Paul's gospel.  You believe and preach a false gospel that is not the gospel that Paul taught.  The gospel that Paul taught happens OUTSIDE of a man, on the cross.

















> As the old folks said "I'm not yet what I ought to be but thank God I'm not what I used to be."  You asked me once if I still had lustful thoughts as if you had a reason to condemn me.  But that just shows how little you know about salvation.  The question isn't whether I've reached perfection, but whether I am growing in Christ, whether I am being transformed.  I can honestly say that I am.  Can you?


You are a prideful Pharisee who is convinced of his own self-righteousness.  If righteousness could come from something you do, then Christ died needlessly.  You don't understand this.  God has not regenerated your heart to realize your own sin and His unyielding law yet.












> You have falsely claimed that I didn't understand justification versus sanctification.  I do.  Sanctification is the process of being transformed into the likeness of Jesus.  You are justified when you let Jesus have your heart.


No.  Justification does not happen in the heart.  A Christian man is justified at the cross:



> *Colossians 2:13-15
> 
> When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Paul is talking about physical conditions, like him being in chains or hungry.  Whatever he is going through, Christ gives him strength to go through it.


So you honestly believe that God only cares about your physical well being?  Nonsense.  Philippians 2:13 proves that Paul is talking about more than just physical needs.

_Philippians 2:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure._

Edit: But you don't even have to go that far to see that you are misreading the context of Philippians 4:13.  Read Philippians 4:11.

_Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, to be content._

So the full context is that Paul learned to be content no matter what.  He could be content regardless of circumstances *through the power of Christ*.  It takes no spiritual power to go through being hungry.  There are people who are not spiritual who survive being hungry every day.  But how many go through hunger contented?  Notice that Paul said in Philippians 4:12 that he was content when he was hungry or when he was full.  You might ask "Why would he not be content when he was full"?  Look at the example of the children of Israel in the desert.  They first complained against God for bringing them in the desert without any food.  Then they complained about the food that He did give them.  So hungry, or full, they complained.  In their complaining they sinned against God.  Jesus gives you power not merely to physically withstand adversity, but to come through adversity in spiritual victory.




> This has nothing to do with following the law, and frankly what a blasphemous and prideful thing to say....that you could follow God's righteous commands.  That is nothing less than spitting in the face of God and disregarding the blood of Jesus:


You are the one spitting in the face of God and disregarding the blood of Jesus.  There is nothing prideful about saying that man can do nothing by himself but that man can do all things through the power of God.  

_Matthew 19:6 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”_

You make Jesus into a liar because you teach that what Jesus says is possible with God is not possible.  And since you selectively care about context, I will give this to you.  This was after the rich young ruler decided not to follow Jesus.  Matthew makes it clear that Jesus loved the rich young ruler (proof that God's love alone isn't enough to save you).  Note that what was "impossible" for the rich young ruler became possible for other rich men like Joseph of Arimathea.  





> You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that.  _How many times have you sinned in the past hour???_  No Christian man could ever say what you just typed.


Wrong!  Only someone who hates Christ like you do would claim that Christ cannot empower a Christian to live a life pleasing to Him.  You are the non Christian.

Edit: And for the record *you are the one asking people "How many times have you sinned in the past hour", not me.*  You asked me that a while back seeking to condemn me.  I have no condemnation because I am in Christ.  Satan is the accuser of the brethren.  Why do you insist on following his methods?




> No it isn't.  This the gospel:


You foolishly take one part of the gospel and claim it is the gospel.  That's because you love darkness rather than light because your deeds are evil.  




> The gospel, or good news, is Christ dying for the sins of His people.


That's part of the good news.  That's not all of the good news.  Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 15:19 that if the gospel was just Jesus death on the cross we would all be "most miserable".  But there's more good news.  Christ was raised from the dead.  And there's even more good news.  Christ gives Christians power to "will and do" His good pleasure.  And there's even more good news.  Christ will come again, put a complete end to sin, and take those who truly know Him to heaven.  It is *all* good news.




> There is nothing about "making Jesus Lord" or "accept Jesus in your heart" or "God wants to live inside you" in Paul's gospel.


It's blasphemous to talk about "Paul's gospel".  Paul never wrote a gospel.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels.  Paul wrote epistles that talked *about* the gospel.  Paul is not your standard.  But even if he were, Paul disagrees with you.

_Philippians 2:12-13

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure._

Oh I'm sure you'll try to come up with some stupid lame way to explain away the truth of God.  You won't be able to do that in the judgement though.  Paul makes it clear that obedience is important and that it is God that empowers obedience.  Ignore the truth at your own peril.




> You believe and preach a false gospel that is not the gospel that Paul taught.  The gospel that Paul taught happens OUTSIDE of a man, on the cross.


A) Paul didn't write any gospel.
B) Paul did write Philippians 2:12-13 which totally disproves your false belief system.




> You are a prideful Pharisee who is convinced of his own self-righteousness.  If righteousness could come from something you do, then Christ died needlessly.  You don't understand this.  God has not regenerated your heart to realize your own sin and His unyielding law yet.


I'm prideful?  You are the one that attacked TER for talking about humility.  You hate humility.  Why is that?  And it is not self righteousness to believe that I can't do anything on my own but to trust the promises of Jesus that with God all things are possible.  You make Jesus into a liar.  And because of that you are the Pharisee.




> No.  Justification does not happen in the heart.  A Christian man is justified at the cross:


Justification is when your sins are forgiven.  Here's what Peter has to say:

_Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit._

Oh...but it doesn't matter because it's not part of the "Pauline gospel" right?  

_2 Corinthians 7:10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death._

----------


## PierzStyx

> This isn't abstract.  This the gospel of imputed righteousness that Paul taught in the books of Romans and Galatians.  
> 
> There is no other gospel than this, even if an angel from heaven came down and preached it to you.



Was there ever a better invitation for me to enter this conversation that this? I think not! 

I really can't add anything to this other than to reaffirm what TER, jmdrake, Gunny, and others have said. Only this I can add:  Calvinism reminds me of two scriptural examples of hypocrites rejected by God. One, form the Bible, is the Pharisees. They worshipped the Law of Moses, the words of a vbook. But by making God's word their idol instead of God they lost the ability, they lost the Spirit, to be able to understand the Word. If they had understood the text every Pharisee  would have fallen at Christ's feet confessing His Messiahship. But they lost focus and made God's word, and not God, their point of worship. They argued over vain technical matters, making a man an offender for a word, using their "education" to justify their pride. They to were sure of their election and salvation. Yet we know Christ told them whose children they really were, the children of Hell. So secure in their knowledge and their assumed salvation these hypocrites ignored the weighter laws of justice and mercy, of love. Much of modern Christianity suffers from this  in my view, but especially Calvinism. And every time you speak, I see it more and more. You love a book more than God, and worship your understanding of that book more than God Himself. And it isn't even the entirety of the Bible you make an idol of, but only certain parts. And those parts come from a Bible you altered at whim taking books out of the Bible that had been in it a thousand years. You don't even love the Bible, you love YOUR Bible, the one you made up. Modern day Phariseeism at its finest.

The other example is from the Book of Mormon. In Alma 31, the prophet Alma and his mission companions go on a mission to preach to an apostate group called the Zoramites, who are perverting the right ways of God. When they get there they see a form of  apostate worship that astounds them because it was something they had never seen before. They see the people, when they come together to worship, all gather together and offer up the same prayers, word for word. This prayer essentially contains two doctirnal points, both of which Alma condemns as grossly false. 1. They deny Christ. and 2. They pray, "But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren,...And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen." These doctrines blow Alma away and the prayer it brings forth from him is beautiful. But he sees they "are a wicked and perverse people", lifted up in pride and self-centered arrogance Their doctrines are perverse, corrupt, bastardizations of the truth. One of the inspiring truths of the Book of Mormon is its assertion of the biblical truth of human agency. God does not elect some to Heaven and others to Hell. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ men are free according to the flesh to be able to choose between good and evil, to love God or love Satan. We are saved by the grace of Christ alone, washed in the blood of the Lamb. But He does not force us into Heaven, He does not enslave us to His will. It is the ways of Satan that lead to slavery. God's wats lead only to freedom and operate upon the principle of respect for human liberty. The doctrine of God electing some to Heaven and some to Hell is a false doctrine. It is a philosophy of man mingled with scripture, not God's word.

----------


## PierzStyx

> What part of Philippians 4:13 do you *not* understand?
> 
> _I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me._ 
> 
> Your belief system makes a fool out of God and a liar out of Paul.  You don't believe that you will be sinning in heaven correct?  Do you not understand that the kingdom of heaven begins on earth *in your heart*?
> 
> Luke 17:21 _Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you._
> 
> Heaven is where God is.  And God desires to live inside of you.  *That* is the gospel.  The great God of the universe wants to call your mind His home.  When He makes your mind His home He causes you to both *will and do* (Philippians 2:13) His good pleasure.  That's when you can have true religion because you will really care about the widows and the orphans and others that God really cares about.  
> ...


I felt the Spirit move me reading these word. Thank you for sharing them. What a wonderful truth, that God wants to dwell within us, to remake us from what we are into what only He knows we can be. What an awe-ful thing!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Was there ever a better invitation for me to enter this conversation that this? I think not! 
> 
> I really can't add anything to this other than to reaffirm what TER, jmdrake, Gunny, and others have said. Only this I can add:  Calvinism reminds me of two scriptural examples of hypocrites rejected by God. One, form the Bible, is the Pharisees. They worshipped the Law of Moses, the words of a vbook. But by making God's word their idol instead of God they lost the ability, they lost the Spirit, to be able to understand the Word. If they had understood the text every Pharisee  would have fallen at Christ's feet confessing His Messiahship. But they lost focus and made God's word, and not God, their point of worship. They argued over vain technical matters, making a man an offender for a word, using their "education" to justify their pride. They to were sure of their election and salvation. Yet we know Christ told them whose children they really were, the children of Hell. So secure in their knowledge and their assumed salvation these hypocrites ignored the weighter laws of justice and mercy, of love. Much of modern Christianity suffers from this  in my view, but especially Calvinism. And every time you speak, I see it more and more. You love a book more than God, and worship your understanding of that book more than God Himself. And it isn't even the entirety of the Bible you make an idol of, but only certain parts. And those parts come from a Bible you altered at whim taking books out of the Bible that had been in it a thousand years. You don't even love the Bible, you love YOUR Bible, the one you made up. Modern day Phariseeism at its finest.


No.  The Pharisees problem was not that they "worshipped a book".  The Pharisees problem, as is your problem as a Mormon today, is that they looked to their works to justify them before God.  Paul describes the Jews this way:




> *Romans 10:1-4
> 
> Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.  For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.  Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.  Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.*


The Pharisees of old, and Mormons today, do not believe that righteousness comes from Christ alone.  The Pharisees and Mormons both taught and teach that man's effort (works) play a role in justifying him before God.

It does not suprise me in the least that you can find all of these other religions that agree with your Phariseeism.  But this is the case because the religion of man is a religion of pride and works.  All religions of man, from Roman Catholicism to Islam to Seventh Day Adventism to Mormonism, all teach that man's works, in some way, play a role in justifying him before God.   Any theology that teaches this is a doctrine of demons.  The Bible teaches that any man who relies on his works for salvation, instead of Jesus' works, is cursed:




> *Galatians 3:10
> 
> For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”*


Pierstyx, you are under this curse _right now_.  Because you don't trust in Christ work's alone to justify you before God, you fall under this curse of the law, and you unless you repent, you will go to Hell.    The law demands a lifetime of perfect obedience, to do everything written in the law.   You do not have this kind of obedience.  Only Jesus does.  









> The other example is from the Book of Mormon. In Alma 31, the prophet Alma and his mission companions go on a mission to preach to an apostate group called the Zoramites, who are perverting the right ways of God. When they get there they see a form of  apostate worship that astounds them because it was something they had never seen before. They see the people, when they come together to worship, all gather together and offer up the same prayers, word for word. This prayer essentially contains two doctirnal points, both of which Alma condemns as grossly false. 1. They deny Christ. and 2. They pray, "But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren,...And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen." These doctrines blow Alma away and the prayer it brings forth from him is beautiful. But he sees they "are a wicked and perverse people", lifted up in pride and self-centered arrogance Their doctrines are perverse, corrupt, bastardizations of the truth. One of the inspiring truths of the Book of Mormon is its assertion of the biblical truth of human agency. God does not elect some to Heaven and others to Hell. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ men are free according to the flesh to be able to choose between good and evil, to love God or love Satan. We are saved by the grace of Christ alone, washed in the blood of the Lamb. But He does not force us into Heaven, He does not enslave us to His will. It is the ways of Satan that lead to slavery. God's wats lead only to freedom and operate upon the principle of respect for human liberty. The doctrine of God electing some to Heaven and some to Hell is a false doctrine. It is a philosophy of man mingled with scripture, not God's word.


It is no surprise to me that when Joseph Smith was conjuring up his tall tales, his tall tales reflected his own theological errors.  Joseph Smith hated the God of the Bible and he hated the doctrines of grace (calvinism) in particular.  Why is this suprising?  All unregenerate men hate the doctrines of grace because men hate God, and the Bible teaches these things.

The Bible does not, ever..in any passage, teach that men's wills are free.  It teaches that men's wills are slaves to sin, dead in sin, unable to respond to God at all:




> *
> John 8:34
> 
> Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
> *


When God saves a man, that man (like all of us) is dead in sins and deserving of wrath.  God makes that man alive, not because of anything in the man, but purely by His grace:



> *Ephesians 2:1-10
> 
> As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,  in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.  All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.  But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,  made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.  And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,  in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.*

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  The Pharisees problem was not that they "worsipped a book".  The Pharisees problem, as is your problem as a Mormon today, is that they looked to their works to justify them before God.  Paul describes the Jews this way:


If a criminal stops committing crimes his "good works" do nothing to pay for the crimes he already committed.  All he can hope for is either a miscarriage of justice or grace from the justice system.  That he is given grace doesn't give him free license to go out and commit more crimes.  Thinking that he has free license to commit more crimes just because he received grace is "spitting in the face of Jesus" as you put it.  Paul warned about people like you when he said _Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid._  If you recklessly disregard Christ's sacrifice by thinking you have no reason because of grace to even *attempt* obedience, then you fit the category of people that Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:16 _He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction._

It doesn't get any clearer than that.  You purposefully and woefully misinterpret scripture Sola_Fide, and you do it to your own destruction.  The most blatant example is when you distorted Matthew 7:22 while ignoring Matthew 7:21.  But that's just one example.  Every time I turn around there is another example of you taking scripture out of context to the point where you assign it the exact opposite meaning of the author's intent.




> The Pharisees of old, and Mormons today, do not believe that righteousness comes from Christ alone.  The Pharisees and Mormons both taught and teach that man's effort (works) play a role in justifying him before God.


I'm not a Mormon and know little of anything of their religion.  But I do understand the Pharisees.  The Pharisees didn't believe in Christ at all.  But more importantly *they were not following the law of Moses either*.  Jesus made that perfectly clear when He said _Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."_  If the Pharisees had truly been following the law of Moses, they would have recognized Jesus as the Messiah because Jesus was the fulfillment of the law.  *That* is the point Jesus was making when He said _John 5:46,46 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me._  You miss the point of Jesus' teachings because you are too busy trying make them fit your own views.  Jesus was saying the same thing about Moses' writings as He said about old testament scriptures in general.  In fact *He said this in the same chapter*! _John 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me._  Is there anything wrong with diligently studying the scriptures?  Of course not.  But if you study the Old Testament and miss that Jesus is the Messiah, you've missed the point.  Likewise if you study the New Testament and miss that Jesus desires to create His kingdom inside of you (Luke 17:21) to the point where you both will *and do* what He wants you to do (Philippians 2:13) and you are transformed into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18) to the point where He recreates the Father's perfection in you (Matthew 5:48) and you keep His commandments because you love Him (John 14:15) and you *don't even find His commandments to be burdensome* (1 John 5:3), *then you've missed the entire point of the New Testament*.  Again, we will not be sinning in heaven.  And if the kingdom of heaven is first established in our hearts that is only possible to the effect that we are willing to let Jesus drive sin from our hearts.  It's odd that you believe God has the power to stop sin eventually, but not the power to deliver you from sin now.  But know this.  *According to Hebrews 10:16, if you keep willfully sinning after receiving a knowledge of the truth, no more sacrifice remains for your sin*.




> It does not suprise me in the least that you can find all of these other religions that agree with your Phariseeism.  But this is the case because the religion of man is a religion of pride and works.  All religions of man, from Roman Catholicism to Islam to Seventh Day Adventism to Mormonism, all teach that man's works, in some way, play a role in justifying him before God.   Any theology that teaches this is a doctrine of demons.  The Bible teaches that any man who relies on his works for salvation, instead of Jesus' works, is cursed:


Wrong.  Seventh Day Adventism teaches that Jesus' blood alone pays the price for our sins.  But the Bible teaches that those who willfully choose a life of sin over Jesus will not have Jesus' sacrifice covering them.  And the sad truth is *you believe this too but you can't bring yourself to admit it*!  That's the point I made successfully regarding the openly gay Calvinist pastor.  You're certain that man isn't a Christian.  Yet you have no reason to make that assertion except from what you've seen from his lifestyle.  You think it's incompatible with him being a Christian.  I don't disagree.  But what makes one form of willful disobedience to God any worse than any other form of willful disobedience to God?  Paul made it clear that no one has the right to judge anyone else, including homosexuals, since *we are all under the same penalty*.  I believe a gay man has the same chance of making it into heaven as any other sinner.  Likewise I believe, and the Bible teaches, that anyone who willfully holds on to any other sin has the same chance of being lost as the openly gay Calvinist preacher that you declared not to be a Christian.  You can't have it both ways.

----------


## moostraks

> No.  The Pharisees problem was not that they "worshipped a book".  The Pharisees problem, as is your problem as a Mormon today, is that they looked to their works to justify them before God.  Paul describes the Jews this way:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pharisees of old, and Mormons today, do not believe that righteousness comes from Christ alone.  The Pharisees and Mormons both taught and teach that man's effort (works) play a role in justifying him before God.
> 
> It does not suprise me in the least that you can find all of these other religions that agree with your Phariseeism.  But this is the case because the religion of man is a religion of pride and works.  All religions of man, from Roman Catholicism to Islam to Seventh Day Adventism to Mormonism, all teach that man's works, in some way, play a role in justifying him before God.   Any theology that teaches this is a doctrine of demons.  The Bible teaches that any man who relies on his works for salvation, instead of Jesus' works, is cursed:
> 
> 
> ...


Nature is the best example of spiritual truths for me. A stagnant pool of water is foul and nauseating, but a flowing, moving body of water is breath taking and awe-inspiring. 

A man can be a stagnant pond, or can surrender to the Spirit to flow forth in their life. When the Spirit moves in a person's life good deeds are evidencing the Spirit's existence. It isn't man doing good deeds. The only true good deeds are those done when a body surrenders to the Will of the Spirit.

----------


## BAllen

Interesting thread. What denomination are you, sola fide? If I decide to go back to church, I'll make sure it is NOT the one you attend.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Interesting thread. What denomination are you, sola fide? If I decide to go back to church, I'll make sure it is NOT the one you attend.


Stay away from Reformed churches.  Don't visit trinityfoundation.org or monergism.com.  Don't watch YouTube videos like this:

----------


## thoughtomator

Yes I've been a cataholic for a long time now

----------


## Sola_Fide

I was hoping some of the Roman Catholics on the board with interact with the OP a little bit.  Maybe offer some thoughts on what they think about it???

----------


## Tpoints

> Yes I've been a cataholic for a long time now


and I've been a Calvinist.

----------


## Confederate

> I was hoping some of the Roman Catholics on the board with interact with the OP a little bit.  Maybe offer some thoughts on what they think about it???


What's the point? You're not interested in an honest debate, you just post threads like this to criticize and ridicule non-Calvinists. We get it, only your interpretation of Scripture and the Christian faith is right, only you are saved (although you had no part in it) and the rest of us have been damned to hell by God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What's the point? You're not interested in an honest debate, you just post threads like this to criticize and ridicule non-Calvinists. We get it, only your interpretation of Scripture and the Christian faith is right, only you are saved (although you had no part in it) and the rest of us have been damned to hell by God.


No, I really enjoy honest debate.  I don't want to ridicule anyone.  I just want to go to the text of Scripture to test and see if what we believe is what the apostles believed.

----------


## BAllen

> No, I really enjoy honest debate.  I don't want to ridicule anyone.  I just want to go to the text of Scripture to test and see if what we believe is what the apostles believed.


 Saith the evil one with forked tongue.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I really enjoy honest debate.  I don't want to ridicule anyone.  I just want to go to the text of Scripture to test and see if what we believe is what the apostles believed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Saith the evil one with forked tongue.


You think going to the text of Scripture to test if what we believe is correct is something an evil person would do?  If you are referring to Satan's tempting of Jesus, then I should remind you that Jesus used the Word of God alone to refute Satan.  Jesus didn't even use His own authority, He said "It is written."


Anyway, the differences between Roman Catholicism and Christianity are highlighted in the OP:



> *What Does the Bible Say?*
> 
> The Bible teaches that believers in Christ are saved, not because of good works, good intentions, religious experiences, or religious rituals – _not even because of what the Holy Spirit has done in their hearts_ – but solely and only because of what Christ did 2,000 years ago when he carried out the plan of God in salvation. Jesus Christ lived a perfect and sinless life, thus fulfilling the demands of God’s law for his people. He died a substitutionary death, taking the punishment that his people deserve for their sins. He came to life again the third day, proving that God was satisfied with his perfect life and sacrifice. 
> 
> The Gospel of Jesus Christ is objective. It is about things that happen wholly outside of us, not about our subjective feelings, experiences, or works. 
> 
> 
> Paul summarizes the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:_ “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, and he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”_ 
> 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> You think going to the text of Scripture to test if what we believe is correct is something an evil person would do?
> 
> 
> Anyway, the differences between Roman Catholicism and Christianity are highlighted in the OP:


First off, Catholocism doesn't teach that salvation depends on what the Holy Spirit does in the heart.  It teaches that salvation depends on mans connection with the church through the sacraments.  

http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php
_The history of human salvation is the history of the way God came to men. The first step on this way was the bridging of the gulf separating God and man in the person of the one Mediator Jesus Christ and by his work of redemption. By means of his Church Christ makes his grace available to all. Only in this application of redemption to mankind is the redemptive action of Christ completed. The doctrine of the sacraments is the doctrine of the second part of God's way of salvation to us. It deals with the holy signs which Christ instituted as the vehicles of his grace.
....
The Church Thus Teaches: There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey. They are validly administered by the carrying out of the sign with the proper intention. Not all are equally qualified to administer all the sacraments. The validity of the sacrament is independent of the worthiness of the minister. Three sacraments imprint an indelible character.
_

Churches that don't teach that sacraments are necessary for salvation are not Catholic, no matter how much you might want to claim that they are.  And if your "source" says that otherwise, then it's not a source worth considering.

Second, if you're going to "go to the text" you have to go to parts of the text that you ignore.

_Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven._

_Philippians 2:12,13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure._

_Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus._

Third, your posting history shows you are not interested in honest debate.

----------


## Confederate

> First off, Catholocism doesn't teach that salvation depends on what the Holy Spirit does in the heart.  It teaches that salvation depends on mans connection with the church through the sacraments.


That is not true.  The Catholic Church teaches that through Justification the righteousness of God, through Christ, is infused in us by the Holy Spirit.

"The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it" 

Salvation in Catholicism: http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/sa...n-catholicism/




> http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php
> _The history of human salvation is the history of the way God came to men. The first step on this way was the bridging of the gulf separating God and man in the person of the one Mediator Jesus Christ and by his work of redemption. By means of his Church Christ makes his grace available to all. Only in this application of redemption to mankind is the redemptive action of Christ completed. The doctrine of the sacraments is the doctrine of the second part of God's way of salvation to us. It deals with the holy signs which Christ instituted as the vehicles of his grace.
> ....
> The Church Thus Teaches: There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey. They are validly administered by the carrying out of the sign with the proper intention. Not all are equally qualified to administer all the sacraments. The validity of the sacrament is independent of the worthiness of the minister. Three sacraments imprint an indelible character.
> _


That's not completely true, or at least you're not interpreting it right.

By saying that the Sacraments are necessary for Salvation it's not saying that it is necessary for every person to receive every Sacrament. It's saying that Christ established the Sacraments for the Salvation of Mankind. Holy Orders is necessary to provide for Bishops and Priests. Bishops are necessary for Confirmation and Ordaining Priests. Priests are necessary for the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick. Marriage is necessary for building up the Kingdom. 

Baptism is the only Sacrament necessary for Salvation for every individual able to receive it.

This is why the Church permits ANYONE to Baptize in case of emergency, validly and licitly.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is not true.  The Catholic Church teaches that through Justification the righteousness of God, through Christ, is infused in us by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> "The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it" 
> 
> Salvation in Catholicism: http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/sa...n-catholicism/


I don't think ^that link gives an accurate picture of the Catholic view of salvation as it makes no mention in the belief Catholics have of the role sacrements play in grace.

See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

_Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means. This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declared heretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and not necessary, although all are not necessary for each individual._




> That's not completely true, or at least you're not interpreting it right.


Or maybe you're not interpreting my interpretation right. 




> By saying that the Sacraments are necessary for Salvation it's not saying that it is necessary for every person to receive every Sacrament. It's saying that Christ established the Sacraments for the Salvation of Mankind. Holy Orders is necessary to provide for Bishops and Priests. Bishops are necessary for Confirmation and Ordaining Priests. Priests are necessary for the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick. Marriage is necessary for building up the Kingdom. 
> 
> Baptism is the only Sacrament necessary for Salvation for every individual able to receive it.
> 
> This is why the Church permits ANYONE to Baptize in case of emergency, validly and licitly.


I never said that Catholics taught that every sacrament was necessary for every individual to receive salvation.  Obviously marriage isn't necessary for all or priests, monks and nuns wouldn't be able to be saved.  That said, are you claiming that Catholics don't teach that penance is necessary for salvation?  (I suppose someone could die of a heart attack right after being baptized, but I'm talking about in the general case.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> First off, Catholocism doesn't teach that salvation depends on what the Holy Spirit does in the heart.  It teaches that salvation depends on mans connection with the church through the sacraments.  
> 
> http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php
> _The history of human salvation is the history of the way God came to men. The first step on this way was the bridging of the gulf separating God and man in the person of the one Mediator Jesus Christ and by his work of redemption. By means of his Church Christ makes his grace available to all. Only in this application of redemption to mankind is the redemptive action of Christ completed. The doctrine of the sacraments is the doctrine of the second part of God's way of salvation to us. It deals with the holy signs which Christ instituted as the vehicles of his grace.
> ....
> The Church Thus Teaches: There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey. They are validly administered by the carrying out of the sign with the proper intention. Not all are equally qualified to administer all the sacraments. The validity of the sacrament is independent of the worthiness of the minister. Three sacraments imprint an indelible character.
> _


We're not talking necessarily about the sacraments (although they are related), we are talking about justification.

Canon XI of the Council of Trent says



> If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.


Canon XII says:



> If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christs sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified: Let him be anathema.


This is exactly what (real) Protestants say and this is what the Bible says.  It says men are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone, and that faith is nothing more than confidence in Christ's righteousness alone.

The Westminster Confession restates the correct (biblical) teaching on justification:



> Those whom God effectually calls he also freely justifies, *not* by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;* not* for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christs sake alone; *not* by imputing faith itself, that act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them.... Faith...is the alone instrument of justification....


Notice the 3 *nots* in the statement.  Men are justified, 

*not* by infusing righteousness into them (which is the Roman Catholic view), 

*not* for anything wrought in them or done by them, and 

*not* by imputing faith itself or believing or any other evangelical obedience (Arminianism).

----------


## Confederate

> I never said that Catholics taught that every sacrament was necessary for every individual to receive salvation.  Obviously marriage isn't necessary for all or priests, monks and nuns wouldn't be able to be saved.


There are many married Catholic priests, there are also many monks and nuns who have been married. (Not implying you said there aren't)




> That said, are you claiming that Catholics don't teach that penance is necessary for salvation?  (I suppose someone could die of a heart attack right after being baptized, but I'm talking about in the general case.)


The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is only necessary if you are in a state of mortal sin. The only absolutely necessary sacrament for salvation is Baptism. We're talking about individuals here.

All the Sacraments are necessary for the Salvation of mankind.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Catholic Church teaches that through Justification the righteousness of God, through Christ, is infused in us by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> "The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it" 
> 
> Salvation in Catholicism: http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/sa...n-catholicism/


Yes, that is correct.  Roman Catholicism teaches _infused_ righteousness, and the Bible teaches _imputed_ righteousness.

----------


## Confederate

> Yes, that is correct.  Roman Catholicism teaches _infused_ righteousness, and the Bible teaches _imputed_ righteousness.


Your faulty interpretation of the Bible makes you think that.

From the link I gave jmdrake:




> You insist that imputed righteousness, i.e. the one that comes through faith, is the only one you need to enter heaven. However, Matthew 25:31-46 says that the sheep are welcomed into heaven because they are righteous (verse 46) – are their righteousness imputed? From verse 31 to 36 we know that they enter heaven because they do righteous things – as Scripture says “he who does right is righteous” (1 John 3:7). This is not imputed righteousness, but infused one. We can do right and become righteous because we connect ourselves to Christ, the true vine who said apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your faulty interpretation of the Bible makes you think that.
> 
> From the link I gave jmdrake:


Remember how the OP describes the difference between what the Bible describes and what Rome teaches:



> The contrast between what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what the Bible teaches about justification may be summarized as follows:
> 
> 
> *Roman Catholicism*
> 
> Justification is subjective, psychological and internal.
> 
> 
> We are justified by God’s work in us. 
> ...



The Bible teaches that no one is righteous, ever.  Not before or after their justification.  A man is only _accounted_ as righteous, and this is solely on the basis of Christ's merits imputed to their account.




> *Romans 4:2 
> 
> If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
> 
> Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.  However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.  David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
> 
>   “Blessed are those
>     whose transgressions are forgiven,
>     whose sins are covered.
> ...





> *Phillipians 3:8-9
> 
> What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.*

----------


## jmdrake

> We're not talking necessarily about the sacraments (although they are related), we are talking about justification.


Who's this "we" you speak of?  Is there a mouse in your pocket?    Your error is that you think that everyone who disagrees with your view of justification is Catholic.  That would be like a Unitarian saying you (Sola_Fide) must be Catholic because you believe in the trinity.

----------


## Confederate

> Who's this "we" you speak of?  Is there a mouse in your pocket?    Your error is that you think that everyone who disagrees with your view of justification is Catholic.  That would be like a Unitarian saying you (Sola_Fide) must be Catholic because you believe in the trinity.


I think his bigger obsession is with Arminians. Have you noticed how often he brings them up?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I think his bigger obsession is with Arminians. Have you noticed how often he brings them up?


Oh the irony.

----------


## jmdrake

> There are many married Catholic priests, there are also many monks and nuns who have been married. (Not implying you said there aren't)


I'll take your word for it and rephrase my comment to "Clearly all sacraments aren't required for everyone's salvation or Catholics who never marry, like many priests and nuns, would not be saved".




> The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is only necessary if you are in a state of mortal sin. The only absolutely necessary sacrament for salvation is Baptism. We're talking about individuals here.
> 
> All the Sacraments are necessary for the Salvation of mankind.


I'm curious as to what sins you think aren't mortal.    Anyway, my point is that while non Calvinist protestants believe confession is necessary, they don't (generally) believe in a church granted sacrament of penance.  That said, I believe Catholics are Christians and I believe Calvinists are Christians and Arminians are Christians and Anabaptists are as well.

----------


## Confederate

> I'll take your word for it and rephrase my comment to "Clearly all sacraments aren't required for everyone's salvation or Catholics who never marry, like many priests and nuns, would not be saved".


Yes, I said that in my first post. It's not necessary to receive all the Sacraments for an individual to be saved, however all the Sacraments are necessary for mankind's Salvation.




> I'm curious as to what sins you think aren't mortal.


Look up the difference between mortal and venial sin. (There are actually three types of sin: mortal, venial, and original)




> Anyway, my point is that while non Calvinist protestants believe confession is necessary, they don't (generally) believe in a church granted sacrament of penance.  That said, I believe Catholics are Christians and I believe Calvinists are Christians and Arminians are Christians and Anabaptists are as well.


Yes, we are all Christians, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that certain Christian sects don't teach wrong and dangerous things which put their followers' salvation in grave jeopardy.

I don't, however, recognize certain religions such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians as Christians.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who's this "we" you speak of?  Is there a mouse in your pocket?    Your error is that you think that everyone who disagrees with your view of justification is Catholic.  That would be like a Unitarian saying you (Sola_Fide) must be Catholic because you believe in the trinity.


If you believe the Roman Catholic view of justification, then it doesn't matter what you call yourself.  You can even call yourself "Reformed" and believe in the Roman Catholic view of justification (lordship salvationists like John MacArthur come to mind).

The sides taken at the Reformation were not taken randomly.  They were taken for good reason.  You have to choose one side or the other.  One side is the religion of man that ends in Hell, and the other side is the gospel that Paul preached which is eternal life.  

As I posted from the counsel of Trent, Rome anathematizes me for my belief in imputed righteousness.  I believe that anyone who does not believe the gospel of imputed righteousness will be in Hell.  You cannot have it both ways.

----------


## Confederate

> I believe that anyone who does not believe the gospel of imputed righteousness will be in Hell.


But they'd be in Hell anyway because God decided they wouldn't be Calvinists. I guess all those Christians who lived in the first 1500 years of the Church are all in Hell, because they certainly disagreed with you on virtually all major theological issues.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you believe the Roman Catholic view of justification, then it doesn't matter what you call yourself.  You can even call yourself "Reformed" and believe in the Roman Catholic view of justification (lordship salvationists like John MacArthur come to mind).


And if you believe what you just wrote then you are ignorant.  I'm not saying that to be mean.  It's just the truth.  The Roman Catholic view of justification is that the church has a role to play in it.  The Arminianist and Anabaptist views are that the church does not have a roll beyond introducing the believer to Christ.

Why is the distinction important?  What sparked the reformation (which was already under way when Martin Luther got involved)?  People were rebelling against the absolute power of the Catholic church.  What gave the church that power?  A belief in its monopoly on grace.  Luther was particularly enraged about the selling of indulgences.  Well you'll have a hard time selling anything if people either A) believe they already have it or B) believe they can easily get it without going through you.  According to Hebrews 4 Jesus is the priest who makes atonement for our sins.  We are invited to "come boldly before the throne of grace".  (Hebrews 4:16)  We have to come.  The question is where?  If you believe that you have to go to the church and do penance to receive that grace if you have committed a "mortal sin" (and who hasn't?) then the church has some measure of control over you.  If, on the other hand, going to the throne of grace merely means falling on your knees and pouring out your heart to God as did the publican in Luke 18, then the church has no control over whether or not you obtain grace.  And note, Jesus said of the publican _I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’_   That is *Christ's view of justification*.  Note that Jesus didn't say "He was already justified but I'm glad he realized it."  Christ also didn't say "He will be justified once I die on the cross."  (Jesus died on the cross before the world was created anyway).  Also note that while the publican was praying out loud, there is no indication that he was confessing his sin to any man.  Jesus didn't tell the publican "Your sins are forgiven you."  They were already forgiven once the publican reached out his hand in faith and accepted grace.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And if you believe what you just wrote then you are ignorant.  I'm not saying that to be mean.  It's just the truth.  The Roman Catholic view of justification is that the church has a role to play in it.  The Arminianist and Anabaptist views are that the church does not have a roll beyond introducing the believer to Christ.


Again, this discussion isn't about the sacraments, it is about justification.  The question is:  Is the basis of my right standing with God the _imputation_ of Christ's righteousness alone to my account, or the _infusion_ of righteousness into my heart, so that I can merit my own justification?

It doesn't matter what you put into the equation to merit your own righteousness with (sacraments, acts of faith, good works, etc), the question is: does God credit or impute Christ's righteousness to me and declare me innocent on _that_ basis, or does God infuse me with grace, make me _actually_ righteous, and judge me based on my grace-infused works?

In describing the Reformed (biblical) view, Charles Spurgeon said:



> “We are considered, as soon as we believe, as though the works of Christ here our works. God looks upon us as though that perfect obedience, of which I have just now spoken, had been performed by ourselves,—as though our hands had been bony at the loom, an though the fabric and the stuff which have been worked up into the fine linen, which is the righteousness of the saints, had been grown in our own fields. God considers us as though we were Christ—looks upon us as though his life had been our life—and accepts, blesses, and rewards us as though all that he did had been done by us, his believing people.” (Charles Spurgeon, The Lord Our Righteousness”)


This has been called "as if" righteousness.  God looks at a Christian man "as if" he was Christ, because God has imputed Christ's righteousness to the man.  

The error of the non-Reformed (non-Biblical) view is:  no number of grace-infused works would be able to establish a perfect righteousness for a man before God.  Only the perfect righteousness of Christ can satisfy the justice of God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, this discussion isn't about the sacraments, it is about justification.


1) The thread title is "Are you Catholic".

2) Sacraments are part of justification in the Catholic system.  It's not part of justification in the Arminianist or Anabaptist systems.  Until you can acknowledge that truth, there is really no reason for discussion because you're just blowing smoke.







> In describing the Reformed (biblical) view, Charles Spurgeon said:


*While the gospel is a command, it is a two-fold command explaining itself. "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." -- Charles Spurgeon*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1) The thread title is "Are you Catholic".
> 
> 2) Sacraments are part of justification in the Catholic system.  It's not part of justification in the Arminianist or Anabaptist systems.  Until you can acknowledge that truth, there is really no reason for discussion because you're just blowing smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *While the gospel is a command, it is a two-fold command explaining itself. "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." -- Charles Spurgeon*


Do you believe that God credits the righteousness of Christ to you and declares you innocent based on Christ's merits, or do you believe that God infuses your heart with grace so that you merit your own justification?

I'm asking you personally, which one do you believe?

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe that anyone who does not believe the gospel of imputed righteousness will be in Hell.  You cannot have it both ways.


But you try to have it both ways.  You've been all over the map on this.  Before I bust you, I'm going to give you one more chance to clear up your position.  Do you believe this young man is going to hell if he continues in his current belief?

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you believe that God credits the righteousness of Christ to you and declares you innocent based on Christ's merits, or do you believe that God infuses your heart with grace so that you merit your own justification?


False choice fallacy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
_A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative._

Your question is as dishonest as Lindsey Graham asking if you think the government should have warrantless access to gun records or do you think terrorists should have guns.

Now to answer your question, I believe that accepting God's grace does *not* mean man has somehow merited justification.  I've explained this to you before so you should know better.  In criminal law there is something known as a plea deal.  The criminal who accepts the deal has *not merited anything*.  A prosecutor is free, at anytime prior to the deal being signed by the judge, to say "Screw that.  I've got the goods on you and I'm going to trial."  But the prosecutor cannot grant the deal unless the criminal accepts it.  The criminal hasn't merited jack.  If you say he has...well you simply don't understand the law.

Now, once again, Jesus said that the publican was justified *after* he confessed his sins.  You love to ask me questions I've already answered.  But you avoid the questions I ask you.  I'll ask you this one again.  Why did Jesus say what He said if the man's confession had nothing to do with his being justified?




> I'm asking you personally, which one do you believe?


I believe neither of the false choices you've presented.  I've told you that before.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> False choice fallacy. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
> _A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative._
> 
> Your question is as dishonest as Lindsey Graham asking if you think the government should have warrantless access to gun records or do you think terrorists should have guns.
> 
> Now to answer your question, I believe that accepting God's grace does *not* mean man has somehow merited justification.  I've explained this to you before so you should know better.  In criminal law there is something known as a plea deal.  The criminal who accepts the deal has *not merited anything*.  A prosecutor is free, at anytime prior to the deal being signed by the judge, to say "Screw that.  I've got the goods on you and I'm going to trial."  But the prosecutor cannot grant the deal unless the criminal accepts it.  The criminal hasn't merited jack.  If you say he has...well you simply don't understand the law.
> 
> ...




Neither?  That's strange.  So what is your view of justification?

Edit:  oh, so you are saying that the confession of the tax collector merited his justification.   So you think God looks at our works and not Christ's alone in justification.

That is the Roman Catholic view, not the Biblical view.

Paul considers all his works (including the work of repentance) as garbage compared to the righteousness of Christ.  Listen to what Paul says about his good works:



> *Philippians 3:4-9 NIV
> 
> If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. 
> 
> But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Neither?  That's strange.  So what is your view of justification?
> 
> Edit:  oh, so you are saying that the confession of the tax collector merited his justification.   So you think God looks at our works and not Christ's alone in justification.


Your reading comprehension sucks.  I'm saying that confessing does not merit justification but that you are not justified without confessing.  The criminal who accepts a pardon has not merited the pardon, but he will not receive the pardon without accepting it.

----------


## jmdrake

And I'm still waiting for you to reply to this Sola_Fide.




> But you try to have it both ways.  You've been all over the map on this.  Before I bust you, I'm going to give you one more chance to clear up your position.  Do you believe this young man is going to hell if he continues in his current belief?

----------


## jmdrake

> I think his bigger obsession is with Arminians. Have you noticed how often he brings them up?


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Confederate again._

----------


## jmdrake

> But they'd be in Hell anyway because God decided they wouldn't be Calvinists. I guess all those Christians who lived in the first 1500 years of the Church are all in Hell, because they certainly disagreed with you on virtually all major theological issues.


That's the paradox.  Calvinists believe that they merit righteousness by believing that everyone who believes they have to accept righteousness is really believing that they merit righteousness and are thus going to hell.  At least Sola_Fide's brand of Calvinism believes that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your reading comprehension sucks.  I'm saying that confessing does not merit justification but that you are not justified without confessing.  The criminal who accepts a pardon has not merited the pardon, but he will not receive the pardon without accepting it.


The Bible says that you confess, repent, accept, etc. BECAUSE you have been justified, not TO BE justified.

In making "acceptance" or repentance a work that you must do to gain justification, you are saying that you don't believe that God looks on Christ's works alone in justification.  You believe that God looks at Christ's work + your work of confession and accepting.

This is the Roman Catholic view of justification.  Canon XI of the Council of Trent says:



> “If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.”


Canon XII says:



> “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified: Let him be anathema.”


This is exactly what (real) Protestants say and this is what the Bible says.  It says men are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone, and that faith is nothing more than confidence in Christ's righteousness alone.

The Westminster Confession restates the correct (biblical) teaching on justification:



> Those whom God effectually calls he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; *not by imputing faith itself, that act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them.... Faith...is the alone instrument of justification....*”


Notice the bolded part.  This is a reference to the heresy of Arminianism.  A man is not justified _by the act_  of exercising faith.   That is what you are saying.  You are saying that your act of believing is the cause of justification.  But the Bible says that believing is the RESULT of justification, not the cause of it.  The Bible says the only cause of justifucation is God's free grace.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, I said that in my first post. It's not necessary to receive all the Sacraments for an individual to be saved, however all the Sacraments are necessary for mankind's Salvation.


And the protestant view is that sacraments aren't necessary for salvation period.  I get it.  I'm pointing out that there is indeed a difference.




> Look up the difference between mortal and venial sin. (There are actually three types of sin: mortal, venial, and original)


Well that would only tell me what some other Catholic who has a website believes and not what you believe.  But here's a site I found that discusses mortal and venial sins and lists some mortal sins.  http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm  Among the "biggies" like abortion and male prostitution, there are the "mortal sins" of "cowardice" and "jealousy" and "disrespect to parents".  I doubt there's a human over the age of 5 who hasn't committed some "mortal sin".  So if you believe you have to have the church administrated sacrament of penance if you've committed a mortal sin, then everyone is stuck having to go to the church to receive grace.  (And I'm sure you don't see it as being "stuck" but rather as being "blessed".)  And that's the point I'm making regarding the difference.  I'm not saying your view is right or wrong, just that it's different.  And if Sola_Fide wants to honestly talk about the Catholic view on justification, he has to talk about the entire view and not just the part that's in common with other protestant groups that he wants to falsely label as Catholic.




> Yes, we are all Christians, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that certain Christian sects don't teach wrong and dangerous things which put their followers' salvation in grave jeopardy.
> 
> I don't, however, recognize certain religions such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians as Christians.


And at this point in my Christian walk I couldn't disagree more.  I had a recent conversation with a colleague on religion.  It went well (it seems these conversations go better in person than on the internet).  I expressed my belief that it is possible for a Christian, through the power of God, to grow to a state of living a sinless life, even though everyone sins at some point in their journey.  He disagreed since he thought that would be putting you equal with Christ.  (I hear the Calvinists like Sola_Fide cheering him on).  I said no, because Christ never sinned.  He said he disagreed and believed Christ sinned before His baptism.  (No Calvinist would cheer him on at this point).  I was like "How do you figure?  The Bible says Jesus was tempted in all points, yet without sin."  He was like "Yes.  After His baptism He was tempted without sin.  But if He didn't sin prior to baptism how could He understand what we went through?  Besides, why would He get baptized if He hadn't sinned?  It wasn't just for our example."  I replied "Sure.  It wasn't just for our example.  He told John He needed to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness.  That meant He was baptized for people like the thief on the cross who repented but never had the opportunity to be baptized."  He countered "Jesus didn't even know His mission until He was baptized and the Father said 'This is My beloved Son in whom I'm well pleased."  I replied "Jesus told His earthly parents that He had to be about His Father's business".  He came back with "Well if Jesus never sinned then He had an unfair advantage over us and so He really didn't go through what we went through."  I came back with "Adam had never sinned before He sinned.  Jesus was in the same position as Adam but faced temptation without sinning."  He replied "Hmmmm...I've got to think about that."

Now is my colleague not a Christian?  You make think so.  But I thought about it.  He still believes that Jesus death is what paid the price for his sins.  The Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."  It doesn't say "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and that His divine nature can be described as XY and Z and that we pre-existed with God and was born through immaculate conception and that He never did anything wrong even in His terrible twos and......."  So now I say group X doesn't have the same understanding of Christ as I do, but I'll leave it up to God to decide who is or is not a Christian.

----------


## jmdrake

> The Bible says that you confess, repent, accept, etc. BECAUSE you have been justified, not TO BE justified.


No it doesn't.  *You say that*!  You lied earlier when you said that you just wanted to "discuss texts".  You don't.  You want to make up what you claim to be in the Bible and ignore what is actually there.  I asked you a direct question about what Jesus Christ Himself said in Luke 18 and you're ignoring it and adding your own meaning to the Bible without providing a single actual text to back up your point of view.  And you still refuse to answer my question in post # 76 because you are afraid I'll bust you.  Don't think I don't see though you SF.

----------


## moostraks

> If you believe the Roman Catholic view of justification, then it doesn't matter what you call yourself.  You can even call yourself "Reformed" and believe in the Roman Catholic view of justification (lordship salvationists like John MacArthur come to mind).
> 
> The sides taken at the Reformation were not taken randomly.  They were taken for good reason.  You have to choose one side or the other.  One side is the religion of man that ends in Hell, and the other side is the gospel that Paul preached which is eternal life.  
> 
> As I posted from the counsel of Trent, Rome anathematizes me for my belief in imputed righteousness.  *I believe that anyone who does not believe the gospel of imputed righteousness will be in Hell.  You cannot have it both ways*.





> Again, this discussion isn't about the sacraments, it is about justification.  The question is:  Is the basis of my right standing with God the _imputation_ of Christ's righteousness alone to my account, or the _infusion_ of righteousness into my heart, so that I can merit my own justification?
> 
> It doesn't matter what you put into the equation to merit your own righteousness with (sacraments, acts of faith, good works, etc), the question is: does God credit or impute Christ's righteousness to me and declare me innocent on _that_ basis, or does God infuse me with grace, make me _actually_ righteous, and judge me based on my grace-infused works?
> 
> In describing the Reformed (biblical) view, Charles Spurgeon said:
> 
> 
> This has been called "as if" righteousness.  God looks at a Christian man "as if" he was Christ, because God has imputed Christ's righteousness to the man.  
> 
> The error of the non-Reformed (non-Biblical) view is:  no number of grace-infused works would be able to establish a perfect righteousness for a man before God.  Only the perfect righteousness of Christ can satisfy the justice of God.


How is this not double speak? You believe that one must believe (an action) in agreement with your beliefs or they will go to hell. However those that believe an action is required are going to hell according to you. So then would you not also be deeming all those in agreement with you are going to hell because the requirement of belief in your system is an action they must perform?

----------


## jmdrake

> How is this not double speak? You believe that one must believe (an action) in agreement with your beliefs or they will go to hell. However those that believe an action is required are going to hell according to you. So then would you not also be deeming all those in agreement with you are going to hell because the requirement of belief in your system is an action they must perform?


Yep.  The Calvinist paradox in all its glory!

Edit: And that's why Sola_Fide can't bring himself to respond to post #76.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You talk as though you deprecate works as contributing to salvation, and then you make knowledge itself into a work that develops salvation.





> How is this not double speak? You believe that one must believe (an action) in agreement with your beliefs or they will go to hell. However those that believe an action is required are going to hell according to you. So then would you not also be deeming all those in agreement with you are going to hell because the requirement of belief in your system is an action they must perform?





> Yep.  The Calvinist paradox in all its glory!
> 
> Edit: And that's why Sola_Fide can't bring himself to respond to post #76.


Or as early as post 31.

----------


## moostraks

> Or as early as post 31.

----------


## Sola_Fide

[FOOTNOTE][/FOOTNOTE]


> How is this not double speak? You believe that one must believe (an action) in agreement with your beliefs or they will go to hell. However those that believe an action is required are going to hell according to you. So then would you not also be deeming all those in agreement with you are going to hell because the requirement of belief in your system is an action they must perform?


Where do you think I say that something (anything) is required from man for salvation?  Wouldn't you understand what I've been saying to mean that faith, repentance, etc is an _evidence_ of regeneration, not _cause_ of it?

So, in other words, when Jesus said "my sheep will hear my voice", He meant that the ones that will hear His voice and believe His gospel do so because they have already been chosen.  And this is confirmed in several places in Scripture.  A Christian man is not saved because of anything he has done:



> *2 Timothy 1:9 NIV
> 
> He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,*


God's elect people believe the gospel because God has chosen them, not the other way around.

----------


## moostraks

> [FOOTNOTE][/FOOTNOTE]
> 
> Where do you think I say that something (anything) is required from man for salvation?  Wouldn't you understand what I've been saying to mean that faith, repentance, etc is an _evidence_ of regeneration, not _cause_ of it?
> 
> So, in other words, when Jesus said "my sheep will hear my voice", He meant that the ones that will hear His voice and believe His gospel do so because they have already been chosen.  And this is confirmed in several places in Scripture.  A Christian man is not saved because of anything he has done:
> 
> 
> God's elect people believe the gospel because God has chosen them, not the other way around.





> If you believe the Roman Catholic view of justification, then it doesn't matter what you call yourself.  You can even call yourself "Reformed" and believe in the Roman Catholic view of justification (lordship salvationists like John MacArthur come to mind).
> 
> The sides taken at the Reformation were not taken randomly.  They were taken for good reason.  *You have to choose one side or the other*.  One side is the religion of man that ends in Hell, and the other side is the gospel that Paul preached which is eternal life.  
> 
> As I posted from the counsel of Trent, Rome anathematizes me for my belief in imputed righteousness.  *I believe that anyone who does not believe the gospel of imputed righteousness will be in Hell. * You cannot have it both ways.



Your positions are all over the place. I highlighted two parts for you this time. Maybe you will see it this time.

You really need to be honest about your position and stop the deviousness. You aren't here to discuss anything. Your positions are vain. There is no choosing, as you say so yourself in this post. Yet, in other posts you say one must choose a side. So the saved according to you aren't saved unless they espouse your viewpoints. Which is an action but not an action according to you that saves them but if they don't comply by espousing agreement with you then they are damned. So it is their actions that accuse them. Yet when someone argues with you that one is known by their deeds, you demand that that is works justification. Okay, then why isn't your position held to the same standard of accusation? Only people who are of the mindset that they possess this specialness can agree your position makes any logical, consistent sense. The rest of us scratch our heads as to why you cannot see the contorted argument you are proposing.

----------


## jmdrake

> So, in other words, when Jesus said "my sheep will hear my voice"


But if they hear that voice and believe they are actually supposed to obey it and follow Him they're going to hell.  Got it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But if they hear that voice and believe they are actually supposed to obey it and follow Him they're going to hell.  Got it.


The ones who are saved are given the knowledge that they can't obey Him, and they need the righteousness of Christ to stand before a Holy God.  Their only assurance is the imputed righteousness of Christ.

By the imputed disobedience of one man (Adam), all in him are declared guilty.  By the imputed obedience of one man (Christ), all in him are declared righteous.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your positions are all over the place. I highlighted two parts for you this time. Maybe you will see it this time.
> 
> You really need to be honest about your position and stop the deviousness. You aren't here to discuss anything. Your positions are vain. There is no choosing, as you say so yourself in this post. Yet, in other posts you say one must choose a side. So the saved according to you aren't saved unless they espouse your viewpoints. Which is an action but not an action according to you that saves them but if they don't comply by espousing agreement with you then they are damned. So it is their actions that accuse them. Yet when someone argues with you that one is known by their deeds, you demand that that is works justification. Okay, then why isn't your position held to the same standard of accusation? Only people who are of the mindset that they possess this specialness can agree your position makes any logical, consistent sense. The rest of us scratch our heads as to why you cannot see the contorted argument you are proposing.


I'm not to blame for the misunderstandings you have in your own mind.  So don't accuse me of being devious.  I answered your misunderstanding in my response to you in the previous page of this thread.

The confusion is in your own misunderstanding of grace, not in the Reformed position.

----------


## TER

> I'm not to blame for the misunderstandings you have in your own mind.  So don't accuse me of being devious.  I answered your misunderstanding in my response to you in the previous page of this thread.
> 
> The confusion is in your own misunderstanding of grace, not in the Reformed position.


Actually, according to your position, it's not her fault either. The confusion has been given to her by God.  Therefore, according to your position, we should be blaming God instead.

----------


## otherone

> So, in other words, when Jesus said "my sheep will hear my voice", He meant that the ones that will hear His voice and believe His gospel do so because they have already been chosen.  
> God's elect people believe the gospel because God has chosen them, not the other way around.


Actually, I think this is a beautiful message.  Coming to an online forum, however, and telling everyone else they are screwed seems pretty juvenile, however.  What's the point?  You can't help anyone, right?  What are you getting out of it?  Do you own stock in Xanax?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, according to your position, it's not her fault either. The confusion has been given to her by God.  Therefore, according to your position, we should be blaming God instead.


That's a misunderstanding as well.  Because God is not to blame for our sinful thoughts, even though He decrees them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, I think this is a beautiful message.  Coming to an online forum, however, and telling everyone else they are screwed seems pretty juvenile, however.  What's the point?  You can't help anyone, right?  What are you getting out of it?  Do you own stock in Xanax?


I used to be an atheist, and I used to be an Arminian. I am so grateful to God that someone preached the gospel to me, and He saved me through it.

----------


## otherone

> I used to be an atheist, and I used to be an Arminian. I am so grateful to God that someone preached the gospel to me, and He saved me through it.


Actually, you were saved prior to someone preaching the gospel to you, at least that's what I read somewhere.  People can't be saved if they haven't been saved already.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, you were saved prior to someone preaching the gospel to you, at least that's what I read somewhere.  People can't be saved if they haven't been saved already.


Well, that is true.  God's elect people were chosen before the foundation of the world:



> * Ephesians 1:4-6 NIV
> 
> For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.*


But there is also the reality of our experience in which a Christian man was lost and unregenerate at one time before the Spirit regenerates him:



> *Ephesians 2:1, 4-5 NIV
> 
> As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins...
> 
> But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.*

----------


## moostraks

> I'm not to blame for the misunderstandings you have in your own mind.  So don't accuse me of being devious.  I answered your misunderstanding in my response to you in the previous page of this thread.
> 
> The confusion is in your own misunderstanding of grace, not in the Reformed position.





> That's a misunderstanding as well.  Because God is not to blame for our sinful thoughts, even though He decrees them.


I am not misunderstanding what you are pushing and it isn't discussion. Saying you want to discuss something is where you are being devious. You have made it clear in other threads that they only reason you "discuss" is because it is the obligatory position of your belief system that you talk about the condition of the damned state of those who disagree with you because the means were prescribed even if they were of no effect on one's conscience.

I don't misunderstand grace or the Reformed position. The two are not however synonymous nor do I believe the word biblical and Reformed to be synonymous.

And a creator who creates a being to suffer just to glorify itself with no opportunity for redemption is worthy of more than blame. We would lock up such a parent indefinately were we to be apprised of that situation. 

Matt 7:11"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 11:13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

----------


## Jamesiv1

I believe I'll go back to Paganism.

----------


## Confederate

> Well, that is true.  God's elect people were chosen before the foundation of the world:


And you believe you're one on the Elect and the rest of us are going to Hell, right?

----------


## amy31416

Hey Sola_Fide--are you trying to push Catholics out of this movement? Be honest.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe I'll go back to Paganism.


Have you ever left?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you believe you're one on the Elect and the rest of us are going to Hell, right?


Why make the arguments personal?  Stick to the text of Scripture.  The Bible teaches election and predestination:




> *
> Ephesians 1:4-6 NIV
> 
> For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.*





> *2 Timothy 1:9 NIV
> 
> He has saved us and called us to a holy lifenot because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,*





> *Romans 9:11-15 NIV
> 
> Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badin order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who callsshe was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 
> 
> What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
> "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
> and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
> *

----------


## James Madison

> And you believe you're one on the Elect and the rest of us are going to Hell, right?


No man should know if he is Elect. If he believes this in his heart then it it likely he believes himself righteous without God.

There is no 'Hell'...at least not in the classical sense. Those who God has not chosen are simply destroyed at Judgement Day. End of story. No eternal writhing in pain.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hey Sola_Fide--are you trying to push Catholics out of this movement? Be honest.


No.  Who am I anyway?  I don't have any say who is in the freedom movement.  Politics is worthless anyway.  Some people think salvation comes by politics...not me.  When we all stand before God at the last day, the last thing that will matter is politics.  

On that last day, many people will plead that their works will be enough to allow them to stand in the presence of the Father in heaven.  Others will look to the righteousness of Christ alone.  There is only one righteousness that God will accept.  We all have to choose which way we will plead.

----------


## Smart3

> There is no 'Hell'...at least not in the classical sense. Those who God has not chosen are simply destroyed at Judgement Day. End of story. No eternal writhing in pain.


Get that memo to the 2 billion or so "Christians" who believe 99% of humanity is going to Hell. 

btw, I agree with you here. That's definitely the correct afterlife position for Christians to take.

----------


## moostraks

> Why make the arguments personal?


Irony is posting this response twenty minutes after snarking at someone that they never left paganism.

Skimmed over your op, I have a problem stomaching large walls of text by trinityfoundation links...found this gem




> That explains why the most devoted followers of the Roman Church have always been the most preoccupied with religious experience: long and repetitive prayers, life in monasteries and convents, pilgrimages to holy places, miracles, veneration of relics, prayers to Mary and the saints, good works, and so forth. None of these things can save. The person who trusts in them will die in his sins.



I don't know if you know what it is like to love someone so much that you are consumed with your affections for them but that is what devotion and utter love for another inspires. Long prayers are conversations with Him. Devotion to a life in a monastery is giving your life over to the pursuit and perpetuation of His needs rather than one's own. Seeking connection to relics and holy places is just an attempt to find in the physical world a glimpse of that which consumes one's soul with love. 

You see spiritual matters as legal language, dry and distant. Your conversations never impart the love or joy of the Holy Spirit. Unless you give yourself over to the Holy Spirit completely for even just one moment,you will never be able to have a true discussion with others regarding the issue of works. You live in head knowledge of spiritual matters and that is why it is dry and legalistic in your opinion. It isn't that through devotion to the monastery or long prayers that one gains heaven of their own merit but that one opens the soul to experience heaven and walking with Him as we should have been doing before the Fall.

----------


## Confederate

> No man should know if he is Elect. If he believes this in his heart then it it likely he believes himself righteous without God.


Tell that to Sola_Fide, he's already said in this thread that anyone who disagrees with his personal interpretation on imputed vs infused righteousness is going to Hell. He seems to think himself infallible on matter of the Faith. I guess he's guided by the Holy Spirit which won't let him err. 




> There is no 'Hell'...at least not in the classical sense. Those who God has not chosen are simply destroyed at Judgement Day. End of story. No eternal writhing in pain.


That's not what Jesus said...




> "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the *everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels*" . . . And these will go away into *everlasting punishment*, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:41, 46

----------


## Confederate

> Why make the arguments personal?  Stick to the text of Scripture.  The Bible teaches election and predestination:


I agree, it does teach both, as does the Catholic Church. They just don't teach your versions of them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Tell that to Sola_Fide, he's already said in this thread that anyone who disagrees with his personal interpretation on imputed vs infused righteousness is going to Hell. He seems to think himself infallible on matter of the Faith. I guess he's guided by the Holy Spirit which won't let him err.


Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.  Wait a second.  The Council of Trent anathematizes me for my belief in imputed righteousness:
Canon XI:



> “If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.”


Canon XII:


> “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified: Let him be anathema.”



Secondly, no interpretation is infallible, but the Scriptures are.  And the Scripture affirms some things and doesn't affirm other things. One of the things that the Scriptures affirm is the imputation of Christ's righteousness:




> *Romans 4:22-25 NIV
> 
> This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.*





> * 1 Corinthians 1:30 NIV
> 
> It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.*





> * Philippians 3:8-9 NIV
> 
> What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.*





> * Romans 5:19 NIV
> 
> 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. 
> *



The Roman Catholic church long ago rejected Paul's gospel of imputed righteousness.  That is why the Reformers had to separate from it.  There is no salvation in a church which anathematizes a doctrine that Paul so clearly preached.  In fact, Paul himself anathematizes anyone who would add to the perfect work of Christ in Galatians chapter 1.  Rome does this, so it is a false religion.

After reading the Reformers arguments as to why the Papacy is the seat of the antichrist, I am really starting to see their arguments now.

----------


## jmdrake

> The ones who are saved are given the knowledge that they can't obey Him, and they need the righteousness of Christ to stand before a Holy God.  Their only assurance is the imputed righteousness of Christ.


So then the ones that are saved are the ones that don't follow Jesus.  After all following Jesus is obeying His command to follow Him.  There is a simple way out of the ridiculous paradox you've put yourself in.  The truth is that the ones who are saved are given knowledge that they can't obey Him *without His power*, and are then given His power to obey.  They also realize that their obedience doesn't gain their salvation because they are already damned by their previous disobedience.  They only thing that can pay the price for the sins they've already committed is the blood of Jesus.

----------


## jmdrake

> No man should know if he is Elect. If he believes this in his heart then it it likely he believes himself righteous without God.
> 
> There is no 'Hell'...at least not in the classical sense. Those who God has not chosen are simply destroyed at Judgement Day. End of story. No eternal writhing in pain.


Sola_Fide believes that hell goes on forever because that's required to satiate God's wrath against man.  I actually agree with your assessment.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So then the ones that are saved are the ones that don't follow Jesus.  After all following Jesus is obeying His command to follow Him.  There is a simple way out of the ridiculous paradox you've put yourself in.  The truth is that the ones who are saved are given knowledge that they can't obey Him *without His power*, and are then given His power to obey.  They also realize that their obedience doesn't gain their salvation because they are already damned by their previous disobedience.  They only thing that can pay the price for the sins they've already committed is the blood of Jesus.


2 things:

1.  This is a misunderstanding of the law/gospel distinction.  Paul says in the book of Galatians that the law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ.  This schoolmaster remains for a Christian man.  The law constantly remains over the Christian man, pointing out his sin, so that he is pushed to lean on Christ's righteousness alone.  

2.  This is the Pharasaical heresy of perfectionism that various cults have.  Ellen G. White taught perfectionism as well.  It's wrong because even a sanctified man can never obey the law, ever.  The law demands perfect righteousness.  James says that if you break one law, its as if you broke them all.

----------


## JK/SEA

i've always wondered about Mossad 2001:9:11

----------


## jmdrake

> 2 things:
> 
> 1.  This is a misunderstanding of the law/gospel distinction.  Paul says in the book of Galatians that the law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ.  This schoolmaster remains for a Christian man.  The law constantly remains over the Christian man, pointing out his sin, so that he is pushed to lean on Christ's righteousness alone.


The only misunderstanding going on is in your head.  Yes the law leads us to Christ.  I'm glad you *finally* admitted that.  Before you were claiming the purpose of the law was to put us in a "worse state" which is patently ridiculous.  The law "converts the soul" by pointing out what a bad state we are in.  That leads us to depend, not only on Christ's righteousness *but also on Christ's power*.  That's the part that you keep missing, purposefully I assume.




> 2.  This is the Pharasaical heresy of perfectionism that various cults have.  Ellen G. White taught perfectionism as well.


Ellen White no more taught perfectionism than Charles Spurgeon did.  I've proven that you know nothing about Ellen White and you only had one quote taken out of context.  You think that if you repeat the same lies over and over again that makes them true.  But all it makes you is a bad liar.




> It's wrong because even a sanctified man can never obey the law, ever.  The law demands perfect righteousness.  James says that if you break one law, its as if you broke them all.


Correct.  Which is why no matter how you live your life after meeting Christ you will always need Christ's sacrifice because of the sins you already committed.  But Jesus expects you to grow towards perfection.  That's why He said "Be ye perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect".  You understand that following Jesus is obeying Him right?  Yet you turn around and say that believing you can obey Jesus is somehow not relying on Jesus even though you claim to understand that Jesus' sheep follow (in other words *obey*) because they heard His voice.  You're nothing but a barrel of contradictions.  And you are showing your cowardice because you still won't answer post # 76.  (No I didn't forget about it.  You can run but you can't hide).

Paul plainly taught to turn away from those who deny the power of God.  And that's what you do.  You believe the God's power can make someone "believe" but that's it.  You contradict the teachings of Paul.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The only misunderstanding going on is in your head.  Yes the law leads us to Christ.  I'm glad you *finally* admitted that.  Before you were claiming the purpose of the law was to put us in a "worse state" which is patently ridiculous.  The law "converts the soul" by pointing out what a bad state we are in.  That leads us to depend, not only on Christ's righteousness *but also on Christ's power*.  That's the part that you keep missing, purposefully I assume.


That is the Roman Cathlolic view of justification.  That it is the grace poured in our hearts that makes us do works and merit our righteousness before God, not the sole imputation of Christ's righteousness alone.   This is wrong, as the OP shows.

Romans chapter 5 says that the law was brought in so that our transgressions would increase.  There is no way around that.  The law always remains above the Christian as a schoolmaster which points out his sin, and pushes him back to the righteousness of Christ alone.






> Ellen White no more taught perfectionism than Charles Spurgeon did.  I've proven that you know nothing about Ellen White and you only had one quote taken out of context.  You think that if you repeat the same lies over and over again that makes them true.  But all it makes you is a bad liar.


Something tells me that you havent read but one Spurgeon article that you copied off a lordship salvationist website...haha.  And Ellen G. White did teach perfectionism, and you know it.  (She also said the Pope was the antichrist...I bet you didn't know that)






> Correct.  Which is why no matter how you live your life after meeting Christ you will always need Christ's sacrifice because of the sins you already committed.  But Jesus expects you to grow towards perfection.  That's why He said "Be ye perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect".  You understand that following Jesus is obeying Him right?  Yet you turn around and say that believing you can obey Jesus is somehow not relying on Jesus even though you claim to understand that Jesus' sheep follow (in other words *obey*) because they heard His voice.  You're nothing but a barrel of contradictions.  And you are showing your cowardice because you still won't answer post # 76.  (No I didn't forget about it.  You can run but you can't hide).


Haha....only in the sinful mind of man would he interpret a verse that says "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" as meaning "try your best".  Jesus wasn't saying "try your best to be perfect", He was saying "I am giving all of you a standard you can never keep to teach you that salvation cones from Me alone, not your obedience".

No, I haven't listened to your video.  I had to turn it off after about 1 minute because the young man in the video was too ignorant.  If you can summarize what he said for me, that would be better I think.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is the Roman Cathlolic view of justification.  That it is the grace poured in our hearts that makes us do works and merit our righteousness before God, not the sole imputation of Christ's righteousness alone.   This is wrong, as the OP shows.


  All the OP shows is that you can find people that agree with your illogical beliefs.




> Romans chapter 5 says that the law was brought in so that our transgressions would increase.  There is no way around that.  The law always remains above the Christian as a schoolmaster which points out his sin, and pushes him back to the righteousness of Christ alone.


And here you are contradicting your own interpretation of Romans chapter 5 since being pushed to Christ doesn't increase transgressions.  There is no way around the fact that Psalms teaches that the law "converts the soul".  That fits what you're trying to say with the "schoolmaster" argument, but you're tripping all over yourself trying to do it.  If you understood the truth, that sin is only imputed when there is knowledge that the sin was wrong, then you would no longer be contradicting yourself as you are.





> Something tells me that you havent read but one Spurgeon article that you copied off a lordship salvationist website...haha.  And Ellen G. White did teach perfectionism, and you know it.  (She also said the Pope was the antichrist...I bet you didn't know that)


You can't be stupid enough to believe that a Seventh Day Adventist doesn't know that Ellen White taught the pope was the antichrist.  Well....maybe you can.  And all I "know" is that you are willfully ignorant.  Something tells me you didn't read the context I provided you of the quote that you *think* confirms your false belief that Ellen White taught perfectionism.  Something also tells me you didn't read the other articles I posted from her that confirms her teaching of salvation by grace through faith.  Something tells me that you were also clueless as to the date of quote you gave (1888) and that you fail to realize that this was just about the time that Ellen White and the rest of the Seventh Day Adventist church was growing in its understanding of salvation by grace.  I could point you to the direction of learning about this if I thought you were serious, but I think that would be just casting pearls before swine.

Again, the words of Spurgeon.

*"Repentance is to leave
The sins we loved before,
And show that we in earnest grieve,
By doing so no more."*

And:

*While the gospel is a command, it is a two-fold command explaining itself. "Repent ye, and believe the gospel."*

Still more from Charles Spurgeon:

*The repentance that ejects sin as an evil tenant, and the faith which admits Christ to be the sole master of the heart; the repentance which purges the soul from dead works, and the faith that fills the soul with living works; the repentance which pulls down, and the faith which builds up; the repentance that scatters stones, and the faith which puts stones together; the repentance which ordains a time to weep, and the faith that gives a time to dance— these two things together make up the work of grace within, whereby men's souls are saved.*

I guess Charles Spurgeon must have been a member of a "cult".  Yet you continue to quote him as an authority on reformed theology.  




> Haha....only in the sinful mind of man would he interpret a verse that says "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" as meaning "try your best".  Jesus wasn't saying "try your best to be perfect", He was saying "I am giving all of you a standard you can never keep to teach you that salvation cones from Me alone, not your obedience".


Only a mind that is in love with sin and heading to hell would think Jesus was saying "I am giving all of you a standard you can never reach to teach you that salvation comes from Me alone" as opposed to "I am giving you all a standard that you cannot reach without me, but that you can reach through me, so that you can understand that salvation comes from me alone and sanctification comes from my power."

It's not about "trying your best".  It's about giving God doing good through you.  And He will in His own time and in His own way.

Paul, who you only *partly* believe, put it this way in Philippians 2:12-13

_12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 

13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose._

Are you reading Philippians 2:12 - 13 this time or are you going to ignore it again?  In verse 12 Paul says the Philippians are *obeying*.  He tells them to *work out their own salvation*!  Of course we all know it's impossible to work out your own salvation.  But in verse 13 Paul explains how the impossible is possible.  "God who works in you to will and to act........".  Why do you refuse to believe what is plainly written in scripture?




> No, I haven't listened to your video.  I had to turn it off after about 1 minute because the young man in the video was too ignorant.  If you can summarize what he said for me, that would be better I think.


You should have been able to answer my question after watching it for 1 minute or less.  He said that he used to be a Calvinist but now thinks Calvinism is crazy.  The simple question I asked you was, do you think he's going to hell because he no longer believes as you believe.  Yes or no.  You have the arrogance to expect me to watch or read every sermon you post, yet you can't answer a simple question based on a short video.  Like I said, you are not serious.

One more thing, why is it that you believe the gay Calvinist minister in Luxemburg isn't a Christian?  I mean, if obedience is unnecessary and if the Christian, as you say, shouldn't even attempt to put an end to sin, then in his life, then why do you think homosexuality is any different?  You've never had the courage to answer that question either.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And here you are contradicting your own interpretation of Romans chapter 5 since being pushed to Christ doesn't increase transgressions.  There is no way around the fact that Psalms teaches that the law "converts the soul".  That fits what you're trying to say with the "schoolmaster" argument, but you're tripping all over yourself trying to do it.  If you understood the truth, that sin is only imputed when there is knowledge that the sin was wrong, then you would no longer be contradicting yourself as you are.


Who knows what you're talking about here.  "Knowledge of the law"?  Paul is not talking about knowledge of the law in Romans 5.  "Sin is not imputed where there is no law" is a description of the time period between Adam to Moses.  That time has passed.  Now, since the law has been given, all men everywhere are condemned because of that law.  The law was brought in to make sin utterly sinful.  The law increased our penalty before God.








> You can't be stupid enough to believe that a Seventh Day Adventist doesn't know that Ellen White taught the pope was the antichrist.  Well....maybe you can.


Since, you regard Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet, then you should join with me in denouncing the Pope as the antichrist.  Right?  (Or maybe the question I should be asking you is:  Why do you regard Ellen G. White as a prophet at all?)






> And all I "know" is that you are willfully ignorant.  Something tells me you didn't read the context I provided you of the quote that you *think* confirms your false belief that Ellen White taught perfectionism.  Something also tells me you didn't read the other articles I posted from her that confirms her teaching of salvation by grace through faith.  Something tells me that you were also clueless as to the date of quote you gave (1888) and that you fail to realize that this was just about the time that Ellen White and the rest of the Seventh Day Adventist church was growing in its understanding of salvation by grace.  I could point you to the direction of learning about this if I thought you were serious, but I think that would be just casting pearls before swine.


The Roman Church also does not teach that *pre-salvation* works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. Canon I of the decrees of the Council of Trent says: “_If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.”_

The Judaizers didn't teach that pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. Paul damned the Judaizers for teaching that* post-salvation* works of righteousness are necessary for entrance into Heaven. The Roman Church, Ellen G. White, and the Judaizers all say that one cannot be saved without *post-justification* works of righteousness.

*The Biblical teaching and the Protestant position is that neither pre- nor post-regeneration works are either meritorious or necessary for justification. It is the only imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith that makes a sinner acceptable to God.*








> Again, the words of Spurgeon.
> 
> "Repentance is to leave
> The sins we loved before,
> And show that we in earnest grieve,
> By doing so no more."
> 
> And:
> 
> ...



I have no problem with those.  No Reformed person would.  But you must understand that Spurgeon taught that regeneration was a gift of grace.  Also, the gospel is commanded to be believed in.  Everyone is commanded to repent and believe the gospel.  No one can follow this command.  













> Only a mind that is in love with sin and heading to hell would think Jesus was saying "I am giving all of you a standard you can never reach to teach you that salvation comes from Me alone" as opposed to "I am giving you all a standard that you cannot reach without me, but that you can reach through me, so that you can understand that salvation comes from me alone and sanctification comes from my power." It's not about "trying your best".  It's about giving God doing good through you.  And He will in His own time and in His own way.


This is a confusion of justification with sanctification.  Our sanctified works are not part of our justification.

Sanctification is a reality. The Spirit sanctifies a Christian man, but the works that are done by the Spirit in that man are not part of his justifying righteousness.  Justification and sanctification are two separate things.









> Paul, who you only *partly* believe, put it this way in Philippians 2:12-13
> 
> _12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 
> 
> 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose._
> 
> Are you reading Philippians 2:12 - 13 this time or are you going to ignore it again?  In verse 12 Paul says the Philippians are *obeying*.  He tells them to *work out their own salvation*!  Of course we all know it's impossible to work out your own salvation.  But in verse 13 Paul explains how the impossible is possible.  "God who works in you to will and to act........".  Why do you refuse to believe what is plainly written in scripture?


The works a Christian does are works are that the Spirit does through him and have been predestined from the beginning to be done.  But, the works of the Spirit (sanctification) are not the basis of our salvation (justification).  Only the blood of Christ is the basis of our salvation.







> You should have been able to answer my question after watching it for 1 minute or less.  He said that he used to be a Calvinist but now thinks Calvinism is crazy.  The simple question I asked you was, do you think he's going to hell because he no longer believes as you believe.  Yes or no.  You have the arrogance to expect me to watch or read every sermon you post, yet you can't answer a simple question based on a short video.  Like I said, you are not serious.


How can a person be saved when he relies on something other than the finished work of Christ on the cross?  If he relies on anything else, then he falls back under the curse of the law. 







> One more thing, why is it that you believe the gay Calvinist minister in Luxemburg isn't a Christian?  I mean, if obedience is unnecessary and if the Christian, as you say, shouldn't even attempt to put an end to sin, then in his life, then why do you think homosexuality is any different?  You've never had the courage to answer that question either.


First, the openly homosexual "pastor" is an impossibility because pastors must be hubands of one wife.  

Secondly, acts of righteousness are not necessary for salvation, the blood of Christ is the sole propitiation for a Christian man's sins.  But justification is always accompanied by sanctification.  Saving faith is always accompanied by good works.

Thirdly, nothing can separate a justified Christian from Christ, even homosexual sins.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know if you know what it is like to love someone so much that you are consumed with your affections for them but that is what devotion and utter love for another inspires. Long prayers are conversations with Him. Devotion to a life in a monastery is giving your life over to the pursuit and perpetuation of His needs rather than one's own. Seeking connection to relics and holy places is just an attempt to find in the physical world a glimpse of that which consumes one's soul with love.


It is possible to (actually it is most likely) that people have a zeal for God that is not based on knowledge.  Paul talks about the Jews of his day who had a definite zeal for God, but it was based on self-righteousness rather than on the righteousness that comes from God:



> *Romans 10:2-3
> 
> For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.  Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to Gods righteousness.*


This is what the passage that you quoted from the OP was talking about.  Since Roman Catholicism does not teach that man's justifying righteousness is Christ's righteousness alone, it teaches that human work and effort is meritorious before God.  This caused a zeal for God that was not based on the righteousness that comes from God, but on self-righteousness.  This is why mystical experiences, acts of extreme religiousity, monasticism, and a general lack of intellectualism (i.e. the Dark Ages) marked and still does mark Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  It all has to do with the doctrine of justification. 

This is why in your next paragraph, you start out by mentioning my "cold" and "distant" (read: logical) way of looking at Christianity:




> You see spiritual matters as legal language, dry and distant.


I am using the language Paul used.  If the language of law, accounting, and business is too cold for you, then you don't understand Christianity as Paul preached it.  






> Your conversations never impart the love or joy of the Holy Spirit. Unless you give yourself over to the Holy Spirit completely for even just one moment,you will never be able to have a true discussion with others regarding the issue of works. You live in head knowledge of spiritual matters and that is why it is dry and legalistic in your opinion. It isn't that through devotion to the monastery or long prayers that one gains heaven of their own merit but that one opens the soul to experience heaven and walking with Him as we should have been doing before the Fall.


It's not "spirtual" or "religious"...let alone "Christian" to disparage logic or reason.  God is Logic.  Logic is God.  




> Christs Use of Logic
> 
> 
> There are as many examples of Christs use of logic as there are of his appeals to Scripture. Let me begin, however, with the conversation that occurs in Matthew 22, in which the Sadducees attack the resurrection:
> 
> The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him, saying, Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.
> 
> Jesus answered and said to them, You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in Heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
> 
> ...





> Pauls Use of Logic
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most famous example of Pauls use of deductive reasoning in an ad hominem argument is, of course, 1 Corinthians 15:
> 
> Now if Christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he did not raise up-if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
> 
> In this brilliant passage Paul deduces several consequences from his opponents view that there is no resurrection. He is trying to make them see the logical implications of their view, and thus to persuade them that their view is false. Here are the implications he draws from the proposition that there is no resurrection:
> 
> ...


*The Apologetics Of Jesus And Paul*
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=168

----------


## moostraks

> No, I really enjoy honest debate.  I don't want to ridicule anyone.  I just want to go to the text of Scripture to test and see if what we believe is what the apostles believed.





> It is possible to (actually it is most likely) that people have a zeal for God that is not based on knowledge.  Paul talks about the Jews of his day who had a definite zeal for God, but it was based on self-righteousness rather than on the righteousness that comes from God:
> 
> 
> This is what the passage that you quoted from the OP was talking about.  Since Roman Catholicism does not teach that man's justifying righteousness is Christ's righteousness alone, it teaches that human work and effort is meritorious before God.  This caused a zeal for God that was not based on the righteousness that comes from God, but on self-righteousness.  This is why mystical experiences, acts of extreme religiousity, monasticism, and a general lack of intellectualism (i.e. the Dark Ages) marked and still does mark Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  It all has to do with the doctrine of justification. 
> 
> This is why in your next paragraph, you start out by mentioning my "cold" and "distant" (read: logical) way of looking at Christianity:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I notice you ignored my comment on your disparaging others and you aren't addressing Scriptures so much as you are pushing trinity foundation. 

And again I am not Christian? What arrogance you possess to think you should go slandering others such as you do. We as Christians are to recognize others by their spirit:

Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself.[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.


The op article, like you, has an anti-Catholic bias. It is upon this bias that they must attack every facet of another's being.

I think you lack love in your analysis of others motivations and have found a bullhorn in places like trinity foundation and James White. The Holy Spirit doesn't display itself through hatred, discord, and selfish ambitions but in love, gentleness, and self control. This means not ridiculing others but trying to understand where they are coming from and seeking to teach with "gentle instruction". 

As for your argument with my post I never said that He was illogical or exists outside of reason. I said _you_ dwell in head knowledge. This is evidenced in how you argue the issues. This is why it is legalistic and dry. To say this is how Paul spoke is to dismiss his passionate responses. You misconstrue passion for license for hatefulness. There is a fine line when addressing others and it regards attack the issues and not the person. Always easier said than done. 

I offered you an understanding of why devoted believers would pursue that which you and the op are misconstruing. Can you not logically also consider my argument? Have you ever felt passionate love for another person? Is this what drives all Catholics? No. It is a reasonable way to understand why many of them live as they do, without condemning the behavior of all of them, many of which have a genuine love and faith in Him.

Matthew 7:2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

I believe if you would lower your guard with the Holy Spirit and move from legalistic and dry to "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness and self-control" we might still disagree on issues as all brothers and sisters do in natural families but you will not see your neighbor as an outsider and an enemy but one who resembles you as a family member and seek to uplift them rather than destroy them.

One of the rules in my home is that no matter how dispicable a person is behaving they are still your family member. Sometimes the worse a person behaves the more that is required of others to restore peace. This doesn't mean indulging the wayward party's wants but gently, through exposure to love, kindness, and tons of patience, bringing them back to a working relationship. Again, since we are all human, easier said than always done, but never the less that which must be done.

----------


## BAllen

Paul murdered many before becoming Christian. How did he gain so much authority? Why are his writings more important than Joseph Smith of the Mormons? I don't see it.

----------


## erowe1

> Paul murdered many before becoming Christian.


How many?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> * Roman Catholicism vs. Christianity*
> 
> Four hundred years ago the religious world was involved in the greatest religious conflict that this world has ever witnessed. A tremendous number of books have recorded a blow-by-blow account of the epic Catholic-Protestant struggle. Yet, after more than four centuries have gone by, the professed sons of the Reformation generally have very little idea of the real issues of the conflict. If you ask a Protestant what Roman Catholics teach concerning justification, you will most likely be told that Catholics believe that a sinner may be justified by his own works of merit. But listen to what an authoritative Catholic catechism teaches:
> 
> 
> *Q.* What is justification?
> 
> *A.* It is a grace which makes us friends of God.
> 
> ...


http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Chu...ification.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I notice you ignored my comment on your disparaging others and you aren't addressing Scriptures so much as you are pushing trinity foundation. 
> 
> And again I am not Christian? What arrogance you possess to think you should go slandering others such as you do. We as Christians are to recognize others by their spirit:
> 
> Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
> 
> 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> 
> 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
> ...


The problem with your interpretation of those verses is that anyone who has love and is nice can show the "fruit of the Spirit".  Atheists, Muslims, anyone...could be nice and "show the Spirit".  So your interpretation is ridiculous.  The initial and most easily recognizable evidence of conversion is that people believe the gospel of imputed righteousness of which Paul speaks.  Anyone who does not believe this gospel, no matter how nice and sweet they are, can not show the fruit of the Spirit.  No one who believes a false gospel has the Spirit of God.

Also, the article has an anti-Catholic bias, yes.  So does God's Word.  God's Word teaches the imputed righteousness of Christ and the particular atonement of Christ.  Roman Catholicism rejects these things, therefore it is false.












> I think you lack love in your analysis of others motivations and have found a bullhorn in places like trinity foundation and James White. The Holy Spirit doesn't display itself through hatred, discord, and selfish ambitions but in love, gentleness, and self control. This means not ridiculing others but trying to understand where they are coming from and seeking to teach with "gentle instruction".


You shouldn't focus on people's "motivations".  You should focus on the doctrine that they espouse.  Our "devotion" or "motivations" don't matter.  You can have all the devotion in the world to an idol of your own mind.  And this is exactly what you have done.  












> As for your argument with my post I never said that He was illogical or exists outside of reason. I said _you_ dwell in head knowledge. This is evidenced in how you argue the issues. This is why it is legalistic and dry. To say this is how Paul spoke is to dismiss his passionate responses. You misconstrue passion for license for hatefulness. There is a fine line when addressing others and it regards attack the issues and not the person. Always easier said than done.


Again, there is no difference between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge".  Not one difference.  They are both the same thing.  Paul himself says that the Jews had a "zeal" for God that was unmatched. The Jews HAD "heart knowledge", according to your definition.  But Paul says they were condemned.  Why?  Because they didn't know God...they didn't know that righteousness comes from Christ alone.  You also, do not believe righteousness comes from God alone.  










> I offered you an understanding of why devoted believers would pursue that which you nd the op are misconstruing. Can you not logically also onsider my argument? Have you ever felt passionate love for another person? Is this what drives all Catholics? No. It is a reasonable way to understand why many of them live as they do, without condemning the behavior of all of them, many of which have a genuine love and faith in Him.


Yes, I told you the actual reason that people do these things...it is because they are prideful, not because they are devoted to God.  That is the Biblical answer to why people look to their works for salvation.  They don't love God.  You don't yet understand this.









> Matthew 7:2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.


Yes, I absolutely want to be judged by the standard I am judging others by.  Every Christian wants this.











> I believe if you would lower your guard with the Holy Spirit and move from legalistic and dry to "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness and self-control" we might still disagree on issues as all brothers and sisters do in natural families but you will not see your neighbor as an outsider and an enemy but one who resembles you as a family member and seek to uplift them rather than destroy them.


This presupposes that Christians and Roman Catholics are in the same family.  We are not.  True Christians believe the gospel of imputed righteousness and particular atonement.  Roman Catholics and Arminians do not.  So we are not in the same family.

Besides, Rome has anathematized me already for my belief in the Bible alone.  So even they realize we are not in the same family.











> One of the rules in my home is that no matter how dispicable a person is behaving they are still your family member. Sometimes the worse a person behaves the more that is required of others to restore peace. This doesn't mean indulging the wayward party's wants but gently, through exposure to love, kindness, and tons of patience, bringing them back to a working relationship. Again, since we are all human, easier said than always done, but never the less that which must be done.


That is sweet and works well for your family, but it is not Biblical and none of it is analogous to the deep theological issues we are talking about.

People who believe that Jesus' atonement was made for every single person (and fails for the majority of people),  and people who believe that God makes people personally righteous instead of declaring them righteous on the basis of Christ's blood are not Christians.  They do not believe the words of Jesus and they do not believe the same gospel that Paul preached.  We are not one big family of religions.  There are children of the Father and children of the Devil.


My hope is that with all the links and the information I put on these boards, you and others will repent of your sin and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is true love.  I have this true love for others and I want all my non-Christian acquaintances to be saved.  But God is the one who gives the gift of repentance...in His own time.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who knows what you're talking about here.  "Knowledge of the law"?  Paul is not talking about knowledge of the law in Romans 5.  "Sin is not imputed where there is no law" is a description of the time period between Adam to Moses.  That time has passed.  Now, since the law has been given, all men everywhere are condemned because of that law.  The law was brought in to make sin utterly sinful.  The law increased our penalty before God.


Total nonsense!  Read Genesis 4:6,7

_6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”_

Before Moses there was already an oral law.  And Cain broke it.  James 4:17 confirms the knowledge requirement of the law.

And look at Joseph.  Who told him that he shouldn't sleep with his master's wife?  Note that Joseph said "How can I do this great wickedness *and sin against God*".

_James 4:17 Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin._




> Since, you regard Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet, then you should join with me in denouncing the Pope as the antichrist.  Right?  (Or maybe the question I should be asking you is:  Why do you regard Ellen G. White as a prophet at all?)


What are you talking about?  This isn't a thread about the pope being the antichrist.  It's a thread where you're basically randomly attacking any Christian that doesn't agree with you.  Babylon of Revelation is identified as a Christian church that persecutes other Christians.  (The whore of Babylon was described as being "drunk on the blood of the saints".)  And yes that takes in the papacy.  (Rome is also a city nestled in 7 hills, and there are other identifying marks as well).  I used to consistently argue with you against Catholics.  I still feel the same way about the papacy.  But I find your defense of religious persecution when protestants do it sickening and hypocritical.  Martin Luther had it right when he said that the Holy Spirit doesn't support religious persecution.  It's sad he didn't stay with that.  And for Calvin to take up persecution of others is troublesome as well.  At this point the only thing I can see "joining with you" in is support of Ron and Rand Paul.  I can (and have) taken up the abuses of the Catholic church without you.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=Catholic
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=Catholic

Besides, I'm pretty sure you used to claim that the beast of Revelation referred to Nero and him alone?  So how can I join you in attacking the Catholic church as being "the antichrist" if you've (misidentified IMO) the beast of Revelation as Nero?  As far as the actual term "antichrist", that's used in John's epistles to point to those who didn't believe Jesus had come in the flesh.  (Most likely gnostics).  The key to realize is that John was identifying any false teachers.

Anyway, I don't find your method of evangelizing Catholics (if that's what you are trying to do) very productive.  While I will bring up specific instances of church abuse in the hope of sparking discussion, I don't think yelling out "antichrist!  antichrist!" does anything for anyone who's not ready for a discussion on the subject.  But hey, post a thread on it and see what happens.




> The Roman Church also does not teach that *pre-salvation* works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. Canon I of the decrees of the Council of Trent says: “_If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.”_


I never said otherwise.  Do you own a farm?  You must because you build so many straw men.  The Roman Church teaches that grace is imparted by the church through the sacraments.  You keep ignoring that distinction.  Why is that?  Seventh-Day Adventists also do not make a distinction between "venial sin" and "mortal sin".  (I hadn't even heard the term before this thread).  Sin is sin.  And SDAs do not believe that you can "make up" for venial sin through acts of charity as Catholics believe.  (At least that's what I got from this link.  http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm#answer4.  Any Catholics feel free to chime in with your own interpretation.)  For any sin the remedy is 1 John 1:9 and Hebrews 4:16.




> The Judaizers didn't teach that pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. Paul damned the Judaizers for teaching that* post-salvation* works of righteousness are necessary for entrance into Heaven. The Roman Church, Ellen G. White, and the Judaizers all say that one cannot be saved without *post-justification* works of righteousness.


John Calvin taught that if your faith didn't produce good works it wasn't faith.  And you can't be saved without faith.  You don't understand Ellen White because you don't understand John Calvin.  If there are no "post-justification" works of righteousness, then that's proof that you don't really have faith to begin with.  Calvin is clear on that.

See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.txt
_ I know him How does he prove that they are liars who boast that they have faith without piety? even by the contrary effect;   for he has already said, that the knowledge of God is efficacious. For God is not known by a naked imagination, since he reveals himself inwardly to our hearts by the Spirit. Besides, as many hypocrites
vainly boast that they have faith, the Apostle charges all such with falsehood; for what he says would be superfluous, were there no false and vain profession of Christianity made by man._

Your claim that Jesus expects people not to strive for holiness through his power flies in the face of everything Jesus, Paul and John Calvin taught on the subject.




> The Biblical teaching and the Protestant position is that neither pre- nor post-regeneration works are either meritorious or necessary for justification. It is the only imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith that makes a sinner acceptable to God.


Hebrews 11:6
*For without faith it is impossible to please God for he who comes to God must believe that He is [u]and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.*

Do you believe that you need to diligently seek God?  Do you believe God will reward you if you diligently seek Him?  If you don't, then you don't have faith and you can't please God.  It's that simple.  That's what the Bible teaches.  You can claim all you want that it doesn't, but it does.




> I have no problem with those.  No Reformed person would.  But you must understand that Spurgeon taught that regeneration was a gift of grace.


Then you shouldn't have a problem with anything Ellen White wrote.




> Also, the gospel is commanded to be believed in.  Everyone is commanded to repent and believe the gospel.  No one can follow this command.


So are you saying that you haven't repented?  Or are you saying that you don't believe the gospel?  And anyone can follow that command through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Anyone who says otherwise is self-deceived.




> This is a confusion of justification with sanctification.  Our sanctified works are not part of our justification.
> 
> Sanctification is a reality. The Spirit sanctifies a Christian man, but the works that are done by the Spirit in that man are not part of his justifying righteousness.  Justification and sanctification are two separate things.


Still building straw men I see.  I didn't say they were the same thing.  Once again, what I wrote:

_"I am giving you all a standard that you cannot reach without me, but that you can reach through me, so that you can understand that salvation comes from me alone and sanctification comes from my power."_

Why do you keep falsely claiming that I'm saying that justification and sanctification are the same thing?  I've explained this to you 100 times now.  And in the above sentence when I say "salvation comes from Me alone" that's justification and when I say "sanctification comes from My power" that's sanctification.  That said, John Calvin apparently disagrees with your strict "justification/sanctification" dichotomy.

*The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. 

John Calvin
*

The point that Calvin is making, that you deny, is that the same regenerating power that brings justification also brings sanctification.  God does not regenerate someone so that they can "believe" and then leave them powerless to actually reach his standard.  You are the only Calvinist (pseudo Calvinist?) on this board to argue such a ridiculous notion.  You wonder why I don't join in with you?  You should ask erowe1 and other Calvinists why *they* don't join in with your nonsensical interpretation of Calvinism.  




> The works a Christian does are works are that the Spirit does through him


That's what I've been saying all along and you keep denying!




> How can a person be saved when he relies on something other than the finished work of Christ on the cross?  If he relies on anything else, then he falls back under the curse of the law.


I knew I could count on you to contradict yourself.




> "Fall from grace" does not equal "lose your salvation".  In Galatians, the Judiazers were "false believers":  Chapter 2, Verse 4 :"This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.  We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you."


So which is it?  Is it possible for someone to "fall from grace" and "lose salvation" or not?





> First, the openly homosexual "pastor" is an impossibility because pastors must be hubands of one wife.


Really?  So if a heterosexual pastor never marries he's not a pastor?  Regardless, I asked you if he was a Christian.  Plus someone can be openly gay and be married to someone of the opposite sex.  For instance, well know lesbian feminist Adrea Dworkin was married to a gay man.  See: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11907/





> Secondly, acts of righteousness are not necessary for salvation, the blood of Christ is the sole propitiation for a Christian man's sins.  But justification is always accompanied by sanctification.  Saving faith is always accompanied by good works.


Now you're contradicting yourself again.  You've just adopted "Lordship salvation" that you've previously rejected.  That's the essence of Lordship salvation.  It's not that you have to "get right" with God in order to be saved.  It's that the condition of your heart, which is Jesus being Master of your heart, is necessary for both justification and sanctification.  You can't be saved without Jesus power.  You can't be sanctified without it either.  Now you can argue said condition comes from "predestination" if you want.  I disagree.  But that's a totally different question from whether the heart of the Christian is one that desires to obey God.  It's clear from the Bible that it is.  For God works in us to both "will and do His good pleasure."




> Thirdly, nothing can separate a justified Christian from Christ, even homosexual sins.


Another contradiction on your part.  You said that openly gay pastor wasn't a Christian.  Whether he's really a pastor or not is irrelevant to whether or not he's a Christian.  I've never said homosexual sins themselves separate anyone from Christ.  But you were the one who said that particular pastor wasn't a Christian.  And you refuse to come clean as to why you said it.  Do you want to retract your assertion?  There is a simple answer to this contradiction you've put yourself in.  You can find it in Hebrews 10.

----------


## moostraks

> The problem with your interpretation of those verses is that anyone who has love and is nice can show the "fruit of the Spirit".  Atheists, Muslims, anyone...could be nice and "show the Spirit".  So your interpretation is ridiculous.  The initial and most easily recognizable evidence of conversion is that people believe the gospel of imputed righteousness of which Paul speaks.  Anyone who does not believe this gospel, no matter how nice and sweet they are, can not show the fruit of the Spirit.  No one who believes a false gospel has the Spirit of God.


The problem I have with your argument is that it denies the Scriptures position completely. This is necessary for you so that you do not need to address the lack of love you display towards others. My interpretation isn't "ridiculous". If someone claims to be His, our best means of judging them is through the fruits of the Spirit. Lacking these fruits means they are not in communion with the Spirit and are providing false witness of the Truth. 




> Also, the article has an anti-Catholic bias, yes.  So does God's Word.  God's Word teaches the imputed righteousness of Christ and the particular atonement of Christ.  Roman Catholicism rejects these things, therefore it is false.
> 
> You shouldn't focus on people's "motivations".  You should focus on the doctrine that they espouse.  Our "devotion" or "motivations" don't matter.  You can have all the devotion in the world to an idol of your own mind.  And this is exactly what you have done.


Motivations are very important. How does one know if they are following flesh or Spirit without analyzing one's motivations? 

Ironic you would claim that _I_ am making an idol of my own mind. I am not the one going around pontificating that my knowledge is evidence of my salvation and I am going to heaven and I know you are going to hell. You are the one who has made your own knowledge (your own mind) of saving importance and unless others acknowledge that you are special and gifted with this then you tell them they are doomed to hell and cannot be special like you are. 




> Again, there is no difference between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge".  Not one difference.  They are both the same thing.  Paul himself says that the Jews had a "zeal" for God that was unmatched. The Jews HAD "heart knowledge", according to your definition.  But Paul says they were condemned.  Why?  Because they didn't know God...they didn't know that righteousness comes from Christ alone.  You also, do not believe righteousness comes from God alone.


No, those who are condemned rely on their own wisdom. The Spirit is heart knowledge. Head knowledge and heart knowledge are in no ways the same means of understanding. Lacking this differentiation, it is easy to see how you dismiss the gifts so handily. Unless you open your heart to let Him in, you are only interested in saving your own posterior and have lost all you think you have gained. This is where one needs to know something about analyzing motivations.

So why should we feed the hungry? If one feeds the hungry because they think it gets them a ticket to heaven then they are not doing it because the Spirit is working through them. If they do it because they truly love their fellow man and don't want him to suffer, then that is the Spirit working through them. So I can have the head knowledge that I am to feed the hungry and do it, and yet still be condemned. Or I can feed the hungry because I love my neighbor, and this evidences the Spirit working in me and me and I am truly a child of His.

As for your snark at my belief in righteousness, I have explained ad infiniteum to you and yet you are so interested in attacking me you refuse to listen to what I say. Stop misconstruing my beliefs.




> Yes, I told you the actual reason that people do these things...it is because they are prideful, not because they are devoted to God.  That is the Biblical answer to why people look to their works for salvation.  They don't love God.  You don't yet understand this.


No, you told me what _you_ feel motivates them because it was necessary for you to malign others and you used it to elevate yourself. It is loveless and self centered and inaccurate. I don't think all who exhibit the behaviors you condemned are doing so for right motivations, but I believe many do. So the behaviors that you think can be used for evidence to condemn are irrelevant but an easy way to mock those who are visibly different from you. I don't think He will be pleased with you insulting His children and should be careful to judge the individual rather than by group. 




> Yes, I absolutely want to be judged by the standard I am judging others by.  Every Christian wants this.


No, you don't want me to judge you based upon _my own knowledge_ and thus condemn you. Every Christian treads carefully in judging others as they are aware the dangerous position of doing so. 




> This presupposes that Christians and Roman Catholics are in the same family.  We are not.  True Christians believe the gospel of imputed righteousness and particular atonement.  Roman Catholics and Arminians do not.  So we are not in the same family.
> 
> Besides, Rome has anathematized me already for my belief in the Bible alone.  So even they realize we are not in the same family.


Everyone is a member of the human family. True Christians have the Spirit in them that exhibits itself by "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control". Those who are motivated by the flesh exhibit "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions". One's behavior displays whether they are following the correct leadings.





> That is sweet and works well for your family, but it is not Biblical and none of it is analogous to the deep theological issues we are talking about.
> 
> People who believe that Jesus' atonement was made for every single person (and fails for the majority of people),  and people who believe that God makes people personally righteous instead of declaring them righteous on the basis of Christ's blood are not Christians.  They do not believe the words of Jesus and they do not believe the same gospel that Paul preached.  We are not one big family of religions.  There are children of the Father and children of the Devil.
> 
> 
> My hope is that with all the links and the information I put on these boards, you and others will repent of your sin and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is true love.  I have this true love for others and I want all my non-Christian acquaintances to be saved.  But God is the one who gives the gift of repentance...in His own time.


Lol! Sweet but irrelevant, hunh?

Matthew 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?

37 Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

To love others as yourself is to realize that they are your blood kin. All members of His family. Go back to Genesis and recall how we are made. The Spirit will open your soul's eyes to this if you open your heart and let the Spirit work in you.

If you really loved others you would be gentle and kind, not mocking others and slandering them. You would listen to what is being said by people who have repeatedly explained themselves and not find some means to twist it for your own selfish ambition. Your links are from the same mindset you are and you should spend some time in honest reflection over what motivates your behavior before insulting others and thinking you know them and their beliefs.

----------


## acptulsa

> The problem with your interpretation of those verses is that anyone who has love and is nice can show the "fruit of the Spirit".  Atheists, Muslims, anyone...could be nice and "show the Spirit".  So your interpretation is ridiculous.


No.  Not even.  Not at all.  Not even a little bit.

What is ridiculous is you denying the last portion of Matthew 25, in which Jesus clearly states who will enter the Kingdom and who won't, and you trying to read into Jesus' words stuff that isn't there.  That's what's ridiculous.

There will be two groups on the Judgement Day--those who fed, clothed, and comforted the least of these, and those who did not.  Jesus said nothing about what happens to atheists (for example) on the Judgement Day beyond that.  You're either capable of accepting this fact or you aren't, but all the lawyering in the world won't get you past it.

The lady has read, and understands, what Jesus said in that passage.  You can deny it, misrepresent it, make unfounded claims about it, or use less than clear portions of the Epistles to try to complicate it.  But there are certain people who will never be impressed by that.  Jesus the Teacher spake, we read, it is clear.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, I absolutely want to be judged by the standard I am judging others by.  Every Christian wants this.


Are you reading the same Bible as the rest of us?

_Matthew 7:1-2

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you._

How can you say with a straight face that every Christian should want to be judged the way you are judging others when Jesus specifically told His followers not to judge others?  The fact that you admit you are judging means that you need to re-examine whether or not you are a Christian.  Oh, but I know, you believe that Jesus doesn't actually want to you to do what He tells you to do right?

----------


## acptulsa

> Oh, but I know, you believe that Jesus doesn't actually want to you to do what He tells you to do right?


This.  Every word Paul ever wrote should be parsed to death for a dozen simultaneous meanings and shades of meanings, but Jesus Himself was a fountain of oversimplification and omission.  The disciples called Him Teacher but a good little fundy should only praise Him for dying on the cross, and not actually listen to a word He said.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you reading the same Bible as the rest of us?
> 
> _Matthew 7:1-2
> 
> 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you._
> 
> How can you say with a straight face that every Christian should want to be judged the way you are judging others when Jesus specifically told His followers not to judge others?  The fact that you admit you are judging means that you need to re-examine whether or not you are a Christian.  Oh, but I know, you believe that Jesus doesn't actually want to you to do what He tells you to do right?


Jesus said:



> John 7:23-24 NIV
> 
> Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man's whole body on the Sabbath?  *Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."*


Every Christian should judge correctly and want to be judged by that same correct judgement.  

Either what you say is right, that Jesus never ever wanted any Christian man to ever judge anything at all, at any time, for any reason
Or
There is another interpretation of "judge not, lest you be judged"

"Judge not, lest you be judged" was an indictment on the Pharisees who would pass judgement on people for their sins when they did the same sins.  Far from teaching people to never judge at all, this was a judgement passage on the Pharisees for their sin.

----------


## moostraks

> No.  Not even.  Not at all.  Not even a little bit.
> 
> What is ridiculous is you denying the last portion of Matthew 25, in which Jesus clearly states who will enter the Kingdom and who won't, and you trying to read into Jesus' words stuff that isn't there.  That's what's ridiculous.
> 
> There will be two groups on the Judgement Day--those who fed, clothed, and comforted the least of these, and those who did not.  Jesus said nothing about what happens to atheists (for example) on the Judgement Day beyond that.  You're either capable of accepting this fact or you aren't, but all the lawyering in the world won't get you past it.
> 
> The lady has read, and understands, what Jesus said in that passage.  You can deny it, misrepresent it, make unfounded claims about it, or use less than clear portions of the Epistles to try to complicate it.  But there are certain people who will never be impressed by that.  Jesus the Teacher spake, we read, it is clear.


Thank you for your positive response!

In trying to respond before there was so much to already respond to that I didn't want to get to far off in the thickets but I am concerned in not being clear on a particular issue that many if not most Christians face at some point in their walk and it has to do with motivation.

We begin with baby steps. So the first sign of our faith is to acknowledge we are not the center of the universe. As a Christian knowing what we should do and doing what we should do are two seperate matters. 

It begins with
Mark 9:24 ... I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!

It is easy to know that one should do certain things but the right motivation only comes from the Spirit. Sometimes we move forward with what begins as a concern for our posterior, but as long as we trust and open ourselves to the Spirit the right motivation will come, and this is where faith comes in to play. 

We are all spirtually crippled and so the therapy for each person can only be healing by He who knows. We should be careful in rushing to accusations of another person because of how a person is dealing with their faith. Since each of us comes from a different background we are going to handle the issue in a unique fashion. It is much like learning any skill such as math or reading. The spiritual life isn't some wholly seperate situation that navigates under different rules. There are 7 different learning styles:

Visual (spatial):You prefer using pictures, images, and spatial understanding. 
Aural (auditory-musical): You prefer using sound and music. 
Verbal (linguistic): You prefer using words, both in speech and writing. 
Physical (kinesthetic): You prefer using your body, hands and sense of touch. 
Logical (mathematical): You prefer using logic, reasoning and systems. 
Social (interpersonal): You prefer to learn in groups or with other people. 
Solitary (intrapersonal): You prefer to work alone and use self-study. 
http://www.learning-styles-online.com/overview/

As there are different learning styles, we are best going to understand and exhibit our spiritual side by that which is closest to our means of understanding it. It is our comfort zone. 

I take offense to those who display a lack of the Spirit and claim to know the Truth rather than one who may have a method of understanding at odds with my own experience. I don't think we are judged so much by the train we ride but whether we arrive at the destination we are called to at the end. Since I am not privy to the necessary therapy for anyone other than myself, I find it inappropriate for me to offer more than advice based upon my own experience.

----------


## acptulsa

> Every Christian should judge correctly and want to be judged by that same correct judgement.


Just as long as you remember that when you throw stones, we don't find you so free of sin as to discourage us from chucking 'em back atcha.

----------


## moostraks

> Jesus said:
> 
> 
> Every Christian should judge correctly and want to be judged by that same correct judgement.  
> 
> Either what you say is right, that Jesus never ever wanted any Christian man to ever judge anything at all, at any time, for any reason
> Or
> There is another interpretation of "judge not, lest you be judged"
> 
> "Judge not, lest you be judged" was an indictment on the Pharisees who would pass judgement on people for their sins when they did the same sins.  Far from teaching people to never judge at all, this was a judgement passage on the Pharisees for their sin.





> You shouldn't focus on people's "motivations". You should focus on the doctrine that they espouse. Our "devotion" or "motivations" don't matter.


The Pharisees were wrongly motivated. 

John 9:28 Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”

30 The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

34 To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

----------


## moostraks

And again on the topic of motivations matter or substance over form:

Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[c]”

Matthew 6:6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Prayer

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:


“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
    but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’

14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Fasting

16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Mark 7 
 1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)  5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"  6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'  8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." 9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!  10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'  11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Korban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.  13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.  And you do many things like that."

14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [[f]If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [g]is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, [h]fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, [i]envy, slander, [j]pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

----------


## jmdrake

> Jesus said:
> 
> 
> Every Christian should judge correctly and want to be judged by that same correct judgement.  
> 
> Either what you say is right, that Jesus never ever wanted any Christian man to ever judge anything at all, at any time, for any reason
> Or There is another interpretation of "judge not, lest you be judged"
> 
> "Judge not, lest you be judged" was an indictment on the Pharisees who would pass judgement on people for their sins when they did the same sins.  Far from teaching people to never judge at all, this was a judgement passage on the Pharisees for their sin.


And you're doing exactly what the Pharisees did which was to set aside the commands of God through your own tradition and then go around and judge those who actually follow Christ.  People who go around trying to put others in hell are the ones who will bust hell wide open.  You should be concerned about your own salvation and not the salvation of anyone else.  I see that you're willing to put someone in hell for leaving your false teaching regarding Calvinism, yet I showed that in another thread you said that "falling from grace" is not the same as "losing salvation".  But now you want to ignore that like your self contradiction never happened.  Did you think I wouldn't notice?  Did you think I wouldn't notice how once again your dodging the question of how can you say with certainty that an openly gay Calvinist pastor is not a Christian, yet say that homosexual sins do not separate the Christian from God?  I know how you *could* say that if you didn't have the warped belief system you propagate.  There is an answer, but you don't get there by believing that repentance is somehow something that separates you from God.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I really enjoy honest debate.  I don't want to ridicule anyone.  I just want to go to the text of Scripture to test and see if what we believe is what the apostles believed.


And just in case you were serious in ^this post (I think it's clear to everyone by now that you weren't), I invite you here to consider the text of Scripture to test and see if what you believe is what the apostles believed.  See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...atthew-5-43-48

----------


## James Madison

> That's not what Jesus said...


Well, it is 'everlasting fire'. The person is destroyed with fire, a punishment with everlasting consequences: eternal separation from the Glory of God, but our unlucky sinner isn't physically aware of this. Jesus is, however, as He is aware of all things.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> I believe I'll go back to Paganism.



Could always try Stoicism as a religious philosophy.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> How many?


A bunch. That was his job before his hot flash on the road to Damascus.

But if you need a number, it was 6,324 (based on thorough research on the interwebz)

----------


## I<3Liberty

I'm United Methodist and lean towards the progressive Christianity side mostly because of the people within in not because the Methodist ideology is flawed or anything (they're not much different.) The United Methodist church I went to as a kid was small and literally 80% people were over 70 - the other 20% were their kids and a few grand kids. My uni has a large progressive population and it's refreshing to sit down and have a deep conversation about stuff. My other church wasn't as into the literature and talking about issues and all that. They sang tradition hymns, ate a lot (haha), and were more focused on reminiscing with the cultural tradition rather than the religious aspects of it. It wasn't bad, but it just wasn't my taste. I think the community has a big influence on beliefs rather than the belief set itself. I've said this before -- culture and religion are often intertwined so closely, it's difficult to tell them apart. Religion and culture are typically learned through family tradition (while some question belief sets later on, you don't often see hardcore atheists becoming hardcore Catholics or vice versa -- it's largely decided by those around us. Since religion provides a guide for a virtuous life, it's usually introduced to kids in this way. They then take into account other virtues through the culture handed down to them... if that makes sense? I see this as a contributing factor for the offshoots of Christianity and the huge differences you'll see even within churches of the same beliefs. The Catholic church near my uni (that's mostly young left-wing Catholics) is likely very, very different than the more traditional catholic church in a rural town with a large elderly population. This is one of the reasons why I don't get worked up when people are like "OMG, you're United Methodist -- you're not a real Christian" and all that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Religion and culture are typically learned through family tradition (while some question belief sets later on, you don't often see hardcore atheists becoming hardcore Catholics or vice versa -- it's largely decided by those around us.


I beg to differ with you on that. The vast majority of atheists come from churches like the United Methodist church and the Roman Catholic church.  Many become atheists and merely just stay in church because church is a country club to them.  There are countless atheists who go to Mass every Sunday.

----------


## Smart3

> I beg to differ with you on that. The vast majority of atheists come from churches like the United Methodist church and the Roman Catholic church.  Many become atheists and merely just stay in church because church is a country club to them.  There are countless atheists who go to Mass every Sunday.


The vast majority of self-identified Atheists are of fundamentalist Christian and Muslim extraction. There is a tiny but vocal minority who were never religious. We call them the lucky ones. 

In terms of closeted Atheists, that's pretty common across the board - especially in the Dutch churches (1/6 or perhaps 20% of all clergy are Atheist/Agnostic) and also in the Episcopal churches. 

In a slightly unrelated note - since Judaism does not require a belief in God, many Orthodox Jews are Atheists.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I went to a Catholic school for three years. A catholic priest paid my tuition if I cut his fields. So I did. Hated it. The school, that is...

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I'm gonna sleep in on Sunday.  You guys can work this out.


lol

----------


## Warhorse

> In a slightly unrelated note - since Judaism does not require a belief in God, many Orthodox Jews are Atheists.


What??? The Othodox viewpoint of Judaism is atheism?  So, what's Judaism then, a no pork penis mutilation club?

----------


## ReasonableThinker

Well, in actuality Judaism doesn't exist anymore so technically no God is required. You can be a Jew and Satanist, a Jew and agnostic, a Jew and a Deist. There's no real dogma because the Mosaic Faith which wrote and protected those ancient texts vanished sometime in the 1st century, probably with some scattered remnants that were assimilated sometime in the 2nd. Modern day Judaism is as ex-Jew, Catholic apologist David Goldstein puts it, "religious anarchy" that would've been easily identified as _alien_ and rejected by the Israelites of old. It lacks a Temple, Priesthood, genealogy records, rituals, blood sacrifices performed by Priests, continual line of David, ancient scripture, etc... If one of these Hasidic jokers encountered an ancient Israelite Priest they would be laughed at, "Who are these people dressed in 19th century attire and have no real genetic, cultural, religious, and even linguistic connection to us? Where is their Priesthood and why isn't there religion structured?"

To put it simply, modern day Jews are organized more like the Quakers than the Mormons. That alone makes their religion wholly ahistorical.

----------


## TER

There is but one Church as there is but just one Body, and the people of Israel is now the people of the Church of Christ.  For Christ is the King of Israel, the awaited Messiah.  His Church He has establishment to be the fulfillment of Israel and indeed all of creation.  Christ has revealed to us our Father.  Through the Jews, the Savior of the Jews was born, and by His Resurrection and Ascension and the coming down of the Holy Spirit upon the heads of the Apostles (those blessed Jews who praise God and pray for the entire world!), He has established His Church, described as His Body in the world, the very members which are the Body to which He is Head of.  And in this Church is today found the Priesthood of Aaron which was there in the beginning and will continue until the coming of the age.  The Church of God established to feed the world the Manna from Heaven, the Bread of Eternal Life, the Holy Eucharist which is the fulfillment of the sacrificial rites of the old covenant and our physical communing with God as our Life-giving Source.  And to maintain the witness of the truth, holding steadfast to the teachings and traditions passed down to them starting first from Christ and then from His Apostles.  The gathering of the worshipers, sanctified by God and guided by the Holy Spirit, the very rebirth of Israel in the New Covenant, in the birth of His Body the Church.

Christ is Emmanuel, God among us, as prophecised by the Prophet Isaiah.  
His Spirit has come into the world, as prophecised by the Prophet Malachi.    
The One Who will step on the throat of the serpent and undue the curse of Adam.  
The Son of Man as foretold by the Prophet Daniel, the Son of God Who was born of the Virgin.
The awaited Savior and hope of Israel, He who is the salvation of all men, Jew or Gentile, ever born.

All those beloved of Israel, Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc, stand alongside St. Peter and St. Paul, members of the cloud of witnesses, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ Who is the King of Heaven.  These members of the Church Triumphiant who glorify God and pray for the entire world.  Invisible to us, but ceaselessly before the throne of God. 

The true roots of Israel (and the Hebrews) is in what is now called in English the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I do not say that to boast (though Christ is my boast), but to announce it so that others may benefit.  I do not say this in order to make any money or advance my career.  The satisfaction I get is in knowing that more might discover the fullness of the truth so that they may be saved and that God might be greater glorified.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, in actuality Judaism doesn't exist anymore so technically no God is required. You can be a Jew and Satanist, a Jew and agnostic, a Jew and a Deist. There's no real dogma


That's mostly true. Except according to Judaism you can't be a Jew and a Christian.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Yeah I'm still Catholic, but that might change. Mainly for tradition now and to keep the Polish culture alive. Haven't been to church in a while. Agnosticism/ atheism sound fun. No gods, no masters.

----------

