Protestantism....

[Devekut]

RED BEETLE

Immediately we see that the discussion is over individuals. Jacob and Esau are the two individuals discussed by Paul. Jacob was chosen by God, not for anything he would do, but so that God's purpose would stand. Note that the individual Jacob was loved and chosen by God not for any works. So much for Catholicism and Arminianism.

You are ignoring the problem that Paul is trying to attack with this very example. Paul is actually trying to combat a kind of pre-determinism present among those whom he is speaking to. The common error, he says, is to regard oneself as part of Israel simply by birthright. This is a kind of pre-determinism. To demonstrate this error, Paul is using the example of Jacob and Esau to show that God does not show mercy by birthright, but by choice. God does not owe anyone His mercy, by birthright or anyother means, we can not demand it.

Now what you are assuming in the text is that God simply raised up Pharoah and Esau and then abitrarily decided to not show them mercy. You are ignoring the possibility that God, through His foreknowledge, acted upon Pharoah in Esau in conjuction with the fate that He knew they had chosen. Pharoah, for all we know, may never have seen God's salvation even without the hardening of His heart. God, knowing this, uses Him as instrument to magnify His own power.

The Lord says "I will show mercy upon those whom I show mercy". This does not neccessitate pre-determinism. God alone is all-knowing so He alone knows His reasons for showing mercy. We can be sure that His reasons are not arbitrary but in accordance with His just and loving nature.

Paul only proposes a kind of pre-determinism. He says "what if God prepared the objects of His wrath"? What if he did this to make the riches of His glory known?"

Notice Paul is not saying that this is true. Paul is asking questions here, not giving answers. He is saying, out of acknowledgment of God's absoltute power, that we should consider such a scenario before we approach God with an attitude that "we deserve His mercy". We do not deserve it. Yet at the same time, who will deny that the Lord is All-Merciful? We should not confuse His all-merciful nature with a "right to His mercy".

Paul's point is that God is our potter, and that we who are formed have no right to expect anything from God.

The point is not "pre-destination" but, as Paul says, that our salvation does not come from "man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy".

 

[Drew]

Romans 9 has precisely nothing to say on the matter of giving faith to individuals.

The Bible says, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" Romans 9:11-13.

Immediately we see that the discussion is over individuals. Jacob and Esau are the two individuals discussed by Paul. Jacob was chosen by God, not for anything he would do, but so that God's purpose would stand. Note that the individual Jacob was loved and chosen by God not for any works. So much for Catholicism and Arminianism.

The argument that this is about individuals does not work. Paul indeed refers to individuals but he does so as examples in an overall context that is clearly about God's covenant faithfulness to national Israel. If Paul is telling a story that is clearly about God's relation with a nation and wishes to underscore that it is entirely just for God to "pre-destine" or elect that nation for a purpose, what better way than to illustrate by an example that is about a person? Such an example is clear and understandable. It would not cause a reader to suddenly conclude that the Paul is actually talking about election of individual people, given the overwhelming evidence that all of Romans 9 and at least part of 10 is about God's treatment of national Israel.

Paul ask the question about God's fairness in verse 19 immediately after talking about how God hardened Pharoah. I think it is well established that the main narrative of Romans 9 is a re-telling of the story of Israel (I will gladly make that case in more detail if asked). So after giving the example of pharoah (again, an integral part of the story of Israel), Paul wishes to make the case that, just like Pharoah, Israel has been "hardened" by God. And just as the hardening of Pharoah's heart was done for a specific redemptive purpose, so it is with the hardening of Israel - they have been "elected" to a terrible burden, to be cast away for the sins of the world (I will defend this more in later posts). Israel is being hardened in order to magnify the greatness of God's redeeming action for the whole world.

In Romans 9:15, Paul quotes from Exodus 33 - "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion". Note that Paul is standing in the Moses position - like Moses he is in a position of wanting to intercede for his people - national Israel. It is no co-incidence that Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 - he is re-telling this well-known story about the people of Israel, bringing it forward into the present to serve his present rhetorical purposes.

Note what Moses says to God:
But now, please forgive their sinâ€â€but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written
Now here is what Paul says in Romans 9:
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

Are there any of you who think this parallel is a co-incidence? I certainly don't. Paul is re-telling the story of his people - national Israel.

Now what about the famous potter's account - a story that is traditionally held to be about election and pre-destination of individuals. We have seen how Paul has just made very specific connections to Moses and has joined Moses in lamenting over national Israel. Paul is in the middle of a story about Israel - so why in the potter's acount are we to believe that Paul abandons his story and starts making theological declarations about God electing individual human beings. This would be a very odd jump.

And what about specific use of the "potter-clay" metaphor elsewhere in Scripture. We have the following from Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"

16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

Who are "these people"?

I think that the answer, and the relevance to the matter at hand, is clear.

 

[Drew]

You sound just like those fools in that chapter who ignored the Gospel, and only sought to make Jesus king of this world.

And you sound like a person who resorts to name-calling and rhetoric when the weight of the argument is going against them. I am all too happy to engage you in discussion but I think this name-calling strategy on your part is going to backfire badly on your position.

In all seriousness, why do you do this, if your case is so convincing on its own merits? Why not let the content of your argument do the work and leave the rhetoric with the politicians?

 

[Drew]

You denigrate Justification By Faith Alone

This is an absolutely false statement. I publically challenge you to find a post where I have done this. Good luck, you'll need it......

 

[Guest]

Let me get this right. You think that a doctrine that was not even introduced into Christianity until the 16th century

Whoops, you made a mistake. John Huss and John Wycliffe had already taught that the Bible alone was the Word of God. It cost Huss his life when Emperor Sigismund lied to him about safe-conduct. Huss was burned at the Council of Constance. This is where Catholicism established that they can lie to non-Catholics if it benefits the Catholic Church--can you find that in the Bible? I can't.

One can trace Sola Scriptura all through history. Gotteschalk is a 9th century example of one teaching Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Absolute Double Predestination.

Recent historical evidence has uncovered documents which reveal that the Albigenses held to Sola Scriptura, and that the Roman Catholic Church-state lied about their views. The Church thought they could simply lie about what the Albigenses believed after they burned the writings they got from them. How about that Catholic genocide throughout the ages? It can be found all through history, even in current day Rwanda. But, as fun as it is to prove foolish Catholics wrong on their biased history, notice that Islam, Jewish, Atheist, and Protestant historians just don't come up with these historical caricatures found in Catholic history books, Sola Scriptura does not depend upon history.

Here is the definition of axiom:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

Sorry, but I don't play by your unscholarly definitions. Let me give the definition I am using:
"(logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident "

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Your attempt to control the debate by failing to provide a full list of definitions only demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt your position is.

What do these words mean, then: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24

Easy, staying in the proper context, which is that James is arguing for how one man may demonstrate to another that he is a believer in the Gospel, the verse means that by proper profession of faith and the keeping of God's law out of gratification we do justify, that is, demonstrate to other humans that we are Christians. The word 'justify', like the word 'axiom' has several meanings. The context determines the use of the word.
Catholicism is guilty of a eisegesis, that is, reading their own views into the text.
Too bad for you.

The Church doesn't teach this, but you know that. Wait, maybe they used to teach it and just burned the documents or are lying, like you said in this post:

Your lying. The confessional is just one example of a sinful man lording over the minds of others. Unless individuals check their own judgment at the door of the cathedral, then the confession box is useless to the priest. No where in the Bible are we ever commanded to confess our sins to a sinner in order to have them absolved.

Where are you getting this stuff. : I'm embarrassed for you, dude.

You need to deal with the fact that your organization is on official record at the Council of Constance maintaining that it is o.k. to lie to non-Catholics in order to benefit the Catholic Church. Your evasion here is telling. History is against you.

If you want to find out what the Catholic Church really teaches, try Catholic sources.
One more thing, lighten up, Red. Forums are supposed to be fun.

This is a sophmoric answer. The idea that only a devout Catholic can know what the Catholic Church actually teaches is absurd. Yes, Catholics will attack ex-Catholics who tell their dirty secrets. Catholics will even attack other Catholics in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church-state if they publish something that is revealing. Ever read "Hitler's Pope"? Good book. How about "Constantine's Sword"? Not even Catholics are safe from the ad hominem hit squads who will do anything to defend Rome.

Let's point out the obvious. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is propositional, and anyone who can read can learn these propositions. So just go hide, your obviously incapable of defending your position.

Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

In the quote you will note that Wright does not cite Scripture, just some piece of history his own biased mind has selected to support conclusions he has already drawn. There is no syllogism, and he can not deduce his teaching from Scripture. Wright is victim to all the problems of modern empirical research. It is that same inductive reasoning that can be used to argue that Napolean never lived in Europe. David Hume demonstrated that there is no cause and effect in the empirical sense of modern science, simply the hope of what has always happened in past observations may happen again in the future. When it doesn't, the scientist, anthropologist, and even the physicist is immediately guilty of the fallacy of asserting the consequence: if P then Q, Q therefore P.

Perhaps you would care to explain precisely how NT Wright is incorrect. If what you write above is indeed correct and if it is relevant to what NT Wright has stated, please flesh that out for us - explain specifically how Wright has run afoul of this philosophical principle. There is no reason why you should not be able to do this if indeed what you say is correct.

And the fact that Wright did not specifically cite Scripture is hardly an argument - are people not allowed to make summary statements of a Scripturally informed position without mentioning Scripture?

Your quote above contains absolutely zero scripture - let the reader draw the obvious conclusion....

 

[Drew]

Your lying.

Are you deliberately trying to get yourself banned from this forum? Please, let's discuss Scripture and leave the rhetoric out of it.

 

[Guest]

You are ignoring the problem that Paul is trying to attack with this very example. Paul is actually trying to combat a kind of pre-determinism present among those whom he is speaking to.

I thought you said Paul was teaching about national covenants, now you say he is dealing with individuals who think they are predetermined by birth. Your confused. And, you are admitting that the passage is teaching about the salvation of individuals.

Paul is using the example of Jacob and Esau to show that God does not show mercy by birthright, but by choice.

Yes, you see Paul is using the individuals of Jacob and Esau to show that it is nothing they will do, but what God determines.

God does not owe anyone His mercy, by birthright or anyother means, we can not demand it.

Your contradicting yourself here. For later you say that God's choice of electiona and reprobation is based upon foreknowledge of what Jacob and Esau would do. Here is your exact quote:

You are ignoring the possibility that God, through His foreknowledge, acted upon Pharoah in Esau in conjuction with the fate that He knew they had chosen.

You have failed to notice that verse 11 contradicts your "free will" position. The Bible states, and you need to deal with this, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, NOT OF WORKS, but of him that calleth" This prevents the fallacious interpretation that God elects some based on their "future works".

The Lord says "I will show mercy upon those whom I show mercy". This does not neccessitate pre-determinism. God alone is all-knowing so He alone knows His reasons for showing mercy. We can be sure that His reasons are not arbitrary but in accordance with His just and loving nature.

It does assert determinism, for God does not state that His grace is effected by works of finite creatures. Omniscience asserts determinsim. Your just in denial. God's act of election is based upon His love. Reprobation is based upon His hate.

Paul only proposes a kind of pre-determinism. He says "what if God prepared the objects of His wrath"? What if he did this to make the riches of His glory known?"

Notice Paul is not saying that this is true. Paul is asking questions here, not giving answers.

Sorry, but these are rhetorical questions. He is making declarations.

Paul's point is that God is our potter, and that we who are formed have no right to expect anything from God.

You have no idea what this means.

The point is not "pre-destination" but, as Paul says, that our salvation does not come from "man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy".

Remember, earlier you said that God chose because He knew what men would do. Your contradicting yourself left and right.
God knows the future, not because He looks into it like a fortune teller does a crystal ball, but God knows the future because He has planned it (Ephesians 1:11).

Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Perhaps you would care to explain precisely how NT Wright is incorrect. If what you write above is indeed correct and if it is relevant to what NT Wright has stated, please flesh that out for us - explain specifically how Wright has run afoul of this philosophical principle. There is no reason why you should not be able to do this if indeed what you say is correct.

Wright's research is based on a mistaken epistemology. Empiricism is incapable of proving anything from the past. Let Wright, who is no philosopher, come on here and demonstrate to everyone just how he can use the Verification Principle to demonstrate something that happened 2,000 years ago. This is why David Hume and Immanuel Kant wiped out religions dependent upon empiricism, such as Catholicism.

And the fact that Wright did not specifically cite Scripture is hardly an argument - are people not allowed to make summary statements of a Scripturally informed position without mentioning Scripture?

Oh no, it is important. If he believes that about the Gospel, then let him deduce it from Scripture alone. Calvinists do not care about what he thinks empirically.

Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Are you deliberately trying to get yourself banned from this forum? Please, let's discuss Scripture and leave the rhetoric out of it.

Can say ad baculum?

Red Beetle

Let the record show that since the Catholics had to resort to threats, then I am the winner of this debate.

 

[Devekut]

Red Beetle,

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not contradicting myself.

God does not owe us His mercy, but we can not recieve it without human consent. His mercy is not recieved because of human action, but without human action it is not recieved.

For this reason, God could have known that Pharoah would never, of his own will, accept the mercy that he does not deserve. Thus God hardens his heart to show other His power.

Again, Paul is asking questions, not making statements. What evidence do you have he is speaking rhetorically?

BTW, Drew is not a Catholic, he is a fellow Protestant who suggested you are acting in a way that might cause the Protestant mods. to ban you.

This is not a Catholic v. Protestant debate.

 

[Drew]

Perhaps you would care to explain precisely how NT Wright is incorrect. If what you write above is indeed correct and if it is relevant to what NT Wright has stated, please flesh that out for us - explain specifically how Wright has run afoul of this philosophical principle. There is no reason why you should not be able to do this if indeed what you say is correct.

Wright's research is based on a mistaken epistemology. Empiricism is incapable of proving anything from the past. Let Wright, who is no philosopher, come on here and demonstrate to everyone just how he can use the Verification Principle to demonstrate something that happened 2,000 years ago. This is why David Hume and Immanuel Kant wiped out religions dependent upon empiricism, such as Catholicism.

Why are you talking about epistemology in general terms? The reader will not overlook the fact that you have turned this from a discussion about Romans 9 being about the covenant and not about individuals being elected into a series of statements about philosophy and epistemology. Please directly deal with the content of Wright's assertion and not evade the content of his statements.

Here again is what NT Wright has to say about Romans 9

the word ‘gospel’ was in public use to designate the message that Caesar was the Lord of the whole world, Paul’s message could not escape being confrontative: Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, and at his name, not that of the Emperor, every knee shall bow. This aspect lies at the heart of what I have called ‘the fresh perspective on Paul’, the discovery of a subversive political dimension not as an add-on to Paul’s theology but as part of the inner meaning of ‘gospel’, ‘righteousness’, and so on

Please tell us precisely how Wright has erred in making these statments. Are you arguing that, for philosophical reasons, Wright cannot legitimately claim that the word "gospel" had this "lord of the world" dimension? It sounds like this is what you are saying. Please lay your cards on the table. Are you telling that all our collective knowledge of history, including what words meant in the culture and time of Paul, is invalid becasuse "Empiricism is incapable of proving anything from the past".

This seems like an exceedingly dubious point if that is indeed what you are saying.

 

[Drew]

Let the record show that since the Catholics had to resort to threats, then I am the winner of this debate.

First, you err (again) - I am not a Catholic.

Second, you have not yet defended your claim that I "denigrated justification by faith".

Third, the above statement defies any logic whatsoever.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you have indeed been threatened. Does it logically follow that the content of your position has been justified. Your argument is essentially this:

1. I, Red Beetle, assert X
2. Others, such as Drew, challenge X
3. I, Red Beetle, am then threatened
4. Therefore, assertion X is sustained.

Which of the philosophers you often refer to would claim that this is a valid argument?

 

[Drew]

One of the sub-themes in this thread has been about who precisely Paul is talking about when he provides his famous text about the potter having the right to create some pots for glory and others for destruction. Many use this text to support the doctrine that God elects (pre-destines) some people to salvation and others to damnation. I (and perhaps others) have been arguing that Paul is really talking about the election of national Israel (to serve a specific redemptive purpose) in the context of an overall narrative about the covenant history of Israel. I have provided a text from Isaiah which establishes a precedent for the use of the "potter - pot" metaphor specifically in respect to national Israel.

Here is another from Jeremiah 18 (with emphasis added by me):

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Does this prove that the potter account in Romans 9 is about God's election of Israel? Not really. It is just one of many items of evidence that support this claim.

 

[Drew]

Further to the issue of the potter's account in Romans 9. If you open your Bible to Romans 9 and pick out verses 20 to 23, you indeed can come away with the idea that God elects individuals to salvation on the one hand and to damnation on the other. But if you read all of Romans, and if you commit to the hypothesis that Paul is a brilliant writer with a deep knowledge of the Old Testament (OT)which he exploits for very specific reasons, and if you follow up on some of those allusions to the OT, I suggest that, like me, you will conclude that in Romans 9, Paul is saying diddly about personal election and is really addressing the election of national Israel.

Romans 9 and 10 is all about the covenant - no one has challenged this in the present thread (I believe). In fact, in both chapters 9 and 10, Paul makes allusions to texts in the OT that deal with the covenant with Israel. So the context is clearly a discussion about the covenant with national Israel, not an exposition about how people get saved.

Look at what Paul is talking about immediately before he gives the potter's account. He is talking about Moses and Pharoah. In that little account, he echoes God's words to Moses from Exodus 33:

The Romans text:

For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion"

The Exodus text:

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion

Note also how Paul puts himself "in the Moses position" in his lament for national Israel.

The Romans text:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel

And now what Moses says in Exodus 32:

But now, please forgive their sinâ€â€but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written

I think we sell Paul short if we ignore what I am sure are these very intentionally crafted references to the Moses story.

These references support the idea that in Romans 9, Paul is specifically talking about the fate of national Israel, not human beings generally. Given these incredibly sophisticated allusions to a parallel story about Moses, Pharoah, and God, it would make Paul a very schizophrenic writer if the potter account, which immediately follows, is not also about national Israel.

I may have made parts of this argument before, but I wish to underscore a "systematic" point: We need to go beyond a superficial reading and follow up the OT allusions that Paul makes here (and elsewhere in Romans, for that matter). When we do this, we develop an appreciation for the subtlety and care of this thought. In this particular instance we discern a direct parallel to Moses interaction with God over the fate of national Israel with Paul almost literally standing in Moses' sandals and pleading for national Israel.

We should honour these allusions and references and understand that the potter's account is indeed well chosen - like a pot, and like Pharoah, national Israel has been hardened. To see the potter account as being about individuals being pre-destined is to ignore the subtlety and complexity of Paul's thought.

 

[dadof10]

Here is the definition of axiom:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

Sorry, but I don't play by your unscholarly definitions. Let me give the definition I am using:
"(logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident "

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Your attempt to control the debate by failing to provide a full list of definitions only demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt your position is.

My definition is from Dictionary.com, how is it "unscholarly"? Is the only definition you'll accept from Ivy League Colleges? How long did it take you to search the internet to find a definition that was narrow enough to attempt to prove your point? The entire "list" is as follows.

ax•i•om /ˈæksiəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-see-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Since we are not discussing mathematics and are discussing principles, rules and truths I left the last one off. Is yours the only definition you’ll accept? Who is trying to “control the debate�

So, after complaining that I failed "to provide a full list of definitions" and calling my position "intellectually bankrupt ", do you provide a full list??? This is a cut and paste from Wordnet:
S: (n) maxim, axiom (a saying that is widely accepted on its own merits)
S: (n) axiom ((logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident)

You left off the first line of the definition. Should I assume something sinister here?
This is typical from extremist anti-Catholics, ignore the questions, call names and hope your opponent will get bogged down in semantics. It's amazing the lengths to which you'll go to not defend your non-Biblical, non-historical, illogical doctrine.

Taking your definition, how do you figure that a doctrine that was invented 1500 years (give or take) after Christ, and has been hotly debated ever since is "not susceptible of proof or disproof"? There!! Hopefully that's phrased juuuust right for you to actually take a crack at. What do you think the term "assumed to be" means in your definition? Assumed by whom? What about the part of the definition from Dictionary.com that I left out that says “for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from itâ€Â. I've seen how you interpret Scripture, maybe this will be a good exercise for you. See if you can properly interpret the dictionary, then move onto something harder.

One can trace Sola Scriptura all through history. Gotteschalk is a 9th century example of one teaching Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Absolute Double Predestination.

I can only find where he believed in double predestination, not SS or sola-Fide. Where did you get this?

Recent historical evidence has uncovered documents which reveal that the Albigenses held to Sola Scriptura, and that the Roman Catholic Church-state lied about their views. The Church thought they could simply lie about what the Albigenses believed after they burned the writings they got from them.

And these are the doctrines they learned from their personal interpretation of Scripture:
1) They held the coexistence of these two principles, represented by God and the Evil One, light and dark, the soul and the body, the next life and this life, peace and war, and the like.
2) They believed that Jesus only seemed to have a human body.
3) The Albigenses held their clergy in high regard. An occasional practice was suicide, preferably by starvation; for if this life is essentially evil, its end is to be hastened.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia (don't know weather it's Columbia Univ. or not. At least it's named after a College :-D )
http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/Albigens.html

Wow, maybe they should have burned their writings, to save them from themselves.
One other notable adherent to your doctrine: Snake-handlers. LOL

Sola Scriptura does not depend upon history.

We agree. Or Scripture or logic, only on opinion.

Easy, staying in the proper context, which is that James is arguing for how one man may demonstrate to another that he is a believer in the Gospel, the verse means that by proper profession of faith and the keeping of God's law out of gratification we do justify, that is, demonstrate to other humans that we are Christians.

Wrong again. Let's start with James 2:20 and let’s look at the “proper contextâ€Â:

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Because it says, “and his faith was made complete by what he didâ€Â, rules out your silly idea that good deeds are simply done to “demonstrate†a persons faith to other humans. His faith and actions are working together. His faith was actually “made completeâ€Â. Can an incomplete faith save you? No. This is stated in verse 20: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?†The obvious answer is no. Next verse:

23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person [Abraham] is justified [credited to him as righteousness] by what he does and not by faith alone.

“Credited to him as righteousness†by MEN??? Is this how you interpret the above verse in Romans 4 also? Why would you define the word “justify†in this verse as “demonstrate to other humans that we are Christians†when James clearly defines it as “considered righteous†or "credited to him as righteousness"?

And if that wasn’t enough, James finishes with:

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous [there’s that phrase again] for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

The text itself uses “justify†and “credit to him as righteousness†interchangeably so you have to use that as your definition. You can do all the backflips you want to try and claim these verses mean that good deeds merely “demonstrate to other humans that we are Christiansâ€Â. The plain words of the text show that you are wrong. We are justified by faith working through love. Not just faith. There is no “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior and you are saved†in Scripture.

Catholicism is guilty of a eisegesis, that is, reading their own views into the text.

In the immortal words of Dr. Evil: "Riiiighhht".

Your lying.

You're projecting.

Let's take a look and see if I am.

Red: "But, you will have to ask a priest if it is o.k. to believe me, for your not allowed to exercise individual judgment. Of course, constantly surrendering your intellect to the whims of a sinful priest requires constant individual judgment."

Dad: "The Church doesn't teach this, but you know that. Wait, maybe they used to teach it and just burned the documents or are lying, like you said in this post:

Red: "Your lying"

It should be easy to prove me a liar. just produce Church documents that Catholics are "not allowed to exercise individual judgment." While you're at it, why don't you prove with Church documents these ramblings:

"Remember Rome's dictum: the end justifies the means."
"Of course, the Vatican does not recognize the laity as part of the 'church'."
"Catholicism has always stood opposite of the United States Bill of Rights. Officially, the U.S. Constitution is known in Catholicism as the heresy of Americanism."

That's enough for now. Remember, it has to be OFFICIAL CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING not Jack Chick tracts.

This is a sophmoric answer. The idea that only a devout Catholic can know what the Catholic Church actually teaches is absurd.

I never said that. Another straw-dog. This is classic. You put up a straw-dog statement to defend your USING STRAW-DOG ARGUMENTS!!! LOL, man you're good.

Let me put this as plain as I can. If you are attacking the Catholic Church, you must attack Her doctrines, not lies you read in free tracts or authors plagerizing Lorraine Boettner. What if someone said "Martin Luther was gay and a mass murderer". Would you expect him to back it up with actual FACT? This is what your quotes above are like. So you can either back them up or apologise.

So just go hide, your obviously incapable of defending your position.

Not till I get proof of your ludicrous statements.

 

[Vic C.]

It has come to our attention that this thread is being disrupted by personal attacks on various members. Lets be mindful of the following points in our TOS:

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Continued infractions will only bring on disiplinary actions against the offender(s) and possibly get this thread locked.

Thanks,
The Staff

 

[dadof10]

Red,
I was in a hurry this weekend when I replied to your last post. I forgot to ask you about the following quote:

John Huss and John Wycliffe had already taught that the Bible alone was the Word of God. It cost Huss his life when Emperor Sigismund lied to him about safe-conduct. Huss was burned at the Council of Constance. This is where Catholicism established that they can lie to non-Catholics if it benefits the Catholic Church--can you find that in the Bible? I can't.

When you say "this is where Catholicism established that they can lie to non-Catholics if it benefits the Catholic Church", are you referring to a Church document that came out of the Council, or that Huss' safe-passage was revolked? I'll wait for your answer before I respond.