So is Pope Francis the Ron Paul of popes?

[cajuncocoa]

Eduardo has done so in this very thread.

God saves by grace THROUGH FAITH. I really, really don't see what's complicated about this. The problem is that people like eduardo, and Billy Graham, will claim that some people don't believe "Through no fault of their own" as if it was their ignorance rather than their sins that damned them.

That's not how I read what eduardo said. And Billy Graham is not Catholic.

I'm getting ready to shut the computer down for the night, so I'll catch up with y'all in the a.m.

Good night!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Because the Church never has claimed that. Salvation is solely by the Grace of the Cross.

That's a lie. In the Roman system, the grace is in the sacraments, which men perform in cooperation with God in the scheme of salvation. This is why Rome doesn't have the gospel. The Bible teaches that the grace of God was conferred on the elect at the cross, which ensured their eternal justification.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's not how I read what eduardo said. And Billy Graham is not Catholic.

I know, but he also preaches a false gospel where he believes some people who do not believe in Jesus Christ are nonetheless saved, so I view him in a similar vein. I would tell him to repent of preaching a false gospel too.

I'm getting ready to shut the computer down for the night, so I'll catch up with y'all in the a.m.

Good night!

I probably won't be on again tomorrow until later in the afternoon.

That's a lie. In the Roman system, the grace is in the sacraments, which men perform in cooperation with God in the scheme of salvation. This is why Rome doesn't have the gospel. The Bible teaches that the grace of God was conferred on the elect at the cross, which ensured their eternal justification.

What do you mean by "eternal justification" exactly?

And, what is your take on Calvin's views on the Lord's Supper and baptism? Not trying to pin you to Calvin, just curious how you interpret his views in that regard, and how serious you believe his errors were.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I know, but he also preaches a false gospel where he believes some people who do not believe in Jesus Christ are nonetheless saved, so I view him in a similar vein. I would tell him to repent of preaching a false gospel too.


I probably won't be on again tomorrow until later in the afternoon.





What do you mean by "eternal justification" exactly?

And, what is your take on Calvin's views on the Lord's Supper and baptism? Not trying to pin you to Calvin, just curious how you interpret his views in that regard, and how serious you believe his errors were.

What do I mean by justification? I mean the gospel. The gospel, as Paul says in 1st Corinthians 15, is that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Jesus came to save His sheep, and He DID save His sheep. He will lose none of them that the Father gives Him.

Romans 3, 4, and 5 speak about the Christian doctrine of justification.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What do I mean by justification? I mean the gospel. The gospel, as Paul says in 1st Corinthians 15, is that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Jesus came to save His sheep, and He DID save His sheep. He will lose none of them that the Father gives Him.

Romans 3, 4, and 5 speak about the Christian doctrine of justification.

Yes, I know, but I think we agree that a person does not actually receive salvation until he is regeneated. Yes, the price for sin is paid for, but Christ's blood isn't actually imputed until regeneration. Before that point, an unregenerate person is still not saved, even though it is absolutely certain, and predestined, that he will be.

I thought "Eternal justification" meant that the elect are actually saved before they are regenerated, or that they could be saved without (or at least before) believing the gospel. I assume that isn't what you meant.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, I know, but I think we agree that a person does not actually receive salvation until he is regeneated. Yes, the price for sin is paid for, but Christ's blood isn't actually imputed until regeneration. Before that point, an unregenerate person is still not saved, even though it is absolutely certain, and predestined, that he will be.

I thought "Eternal justification" meant that the elect are actually saved before they are regenerated, or that they could be saved without (or at least before) believing the gospel. I assume that isn't what you meant.

Oh definitely not. I didn't mean the heresy of eternal justification, in that there was never a time when a believer wasn't saved. I meant that in the sense of predestination. I meant that justification was accomplished at the cross one time for the elect.

Rome's lie is that justification is a process that the believer cooperates in, and can lose.

Romans 5:9

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

It is at the cross that Christian men are justified, not in their religious works in the sacraments. Rome does not have the gospel.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh definitely not. I didn't mean the heresy of eternal justification, in that there was never a time when a believer wasn't saved. I meant that in the sense of predestination. I meant that justification was accomplished at the cross one time for the elect.

OK, I was just making sure. I know what justification is, it was the "eternal" part that I was questioning. Yeah, I'm with you now.

Rome's lie is that justification is a process that the believer cooperates in, and can lose.

Wesleyans believe this as well, but they aren't quite as bad because at least they believe (to my understanding) that a Christian has to actually commit apostasy to lose his salvation, whereas a Catholic would claim that you can commit a sin that makes you lose your salvation.

It is at the cross that Christian men are justified, not in their religious works in the sacraments. Rome does not have the gospel.

Amen.

 

[BuddyRey]

I'm beginning to think you guys would pick an argument over what color sandals Jesus wore if you were bored enough.

 

[fr33]

I'm beginning to think you guys would pick an argument over what color sandals Jesus wore if you were bored enough.

Oh yeah? Well do you have any biblical references to back that up?????

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm beginning to think you guys would pick an argument over what color sandals Jesus wore if you were bored enough.

We weren't arguing, I was asking him a question. I think Sola_Fide used erroneous terminology, since there is indeed a heresy called "eternal justification" and Sola_Fide does not agree with it.

 

[eduardo89]

Oh yeah? Well do you have any biblical references to back that up?????

The Book of Jebby, obviously.

He who sayeth that the Son of God wore anything but brown sandals with white socks shall be stoned to death and damned to an eternal pit of fire.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Wesleyans believe this as well, but they aren't quite as bad because at least they believe (to my understanding) that a Christian has to actually commit apostasy to lose his salvation, whereas a Catholic would claim that you can commit a sin that makes you lose your salvation.

Wesleyans might as well swim back over the Tiber river to Rome.

 

[eduardo89]

Wesleyans might as well swim back over the Tiber river to Rome.

That doesn't make any sense. The Tiber bisects Rome.

If you meant Vatican, it still doesn't make sense. Wesleyans are from the West, the Vatican is on the west side of the Tiber.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wesleyans might as well swim back over the Tiber river to Rome.

I'm guessing you believe John Wesley wasn't saved? (not that I'm surprised, of course.)

You're not going to agree with me on this, but I do see a difference between claiming that a Christian can outright claim apostasy and thus lose his salvation, and saying that a Christian can actually sin his way out of salvation. I'm confident in saying the latter is definitely damnable because its clearly another form of conditionalism. Whereas people who believe you can lose your Salvation via apostasy still aren't outright professing a gospel of works, they believe in salvation by faith, and that you can lose your salvation by no longer having faith.

Its a heresy, yes, but I do see a distinction between the two.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That doesn't make any sense. The Tiber bisects Rome.

If you meant Vatican, it still doesn't make sense. Wesleyans are from the West, the Vatican is on the west side of the Tiber.

lol!

I assume you're joking though, right?

 

[eduardo89]

lol!

I assume you're joking though, right?

Geography is no joke.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Geography is no joke.

You think you are educated, but you have no idea about the issues of the Reformation.

 

[BuddyRey]

The Book of Jebby, obviously.

Well at least you have a sense of humor about it!

+rep

 

[Christian Liberty]

You think you are educated, but you have no idea about the issues of the Reformation.

Didn't Luther AND Calvin both reject limited atonement? Wouldn't that put them in the same boat as Wesley and the Wesleyans according to your theological system?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Didn't Luther AND Calvin both reject limited atonement? Wouldn't that put them in the same boat as Wesley and the Wesleyans according to your theological system?

It's debatable whether they did or didn't. But I wouldn't put stock into them. They were fallible men (saved or unsaved is questionable) that said some good things and some bad things.