Protestantism....

[Drew]

......- for one who really analyzes it and can move beyond the cliches and polemics.

I heartily endorse the spirit behind this and ask the reader to recognize when a poster is engaging in the use of strident rhetoric (e.g. "fascist control of priestcraft") as a substitute for substance. Such techniques, I suggest, implicitly try to seduce the reader from taking the hard path of responsible argument and seeks to carry the day through appeals to one of our baser instincts - the desire to see the world in terms of an evil and malevolent "them" and an innocent "us". This is not the Lord of the Rings.....

 

[Drew]

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

These 5 principles are diametrically opposed to Roman Catholicism and its heretical/humanistic sacerdotal system of salvation--all based upon human merit and the free will of sinful men

I am always interested in how people are thinking when they commit to the "absolute predestination of all things" (presumably by God) on the one hand and then in the very next breath talk about "fascist control" being exerted by other "non-God" agents in our world - namely these priests.

I do not think this is playing fair. If God has truly pre-destined all things, then He has, in a fully sufficient sense, pre-destined the "fascist" behaviour of these priests. And yet I would suggest that the structure of your argument appeals to the reader to see these priests as the causal source of the "fascist" behaviour.

Perhaps that is not your intent. Perhaps you are indeed being consistent and believe indeed that the priests are merely irresistably acting out a script drawn up for them by God in the deep mists of time. Well, in that case, you have cleared yourself on the matter of consistency but at the apparent loss of any substantial overall point. Because, if the priests "fascism" has been pre-destined by God, then you seem to be invoking a concept - namely freedom as in "this frees men from...." that seems to have no place in a universe where everything is pre-destined, including any actions of these men whose alleged "freedom" you want them to gain.

 

[francisdesales]

Let me give a short enumerative definition of what Protestantism is:
1) The Bible Alone Is The Word Of God--this is the axiom of Christianity.
2) Justification By Faith Alone--this is the heart of the Gospel
3) Salvation By Grace Alone--this assumes the absolute predestination of all things
4) Christ Alone--this frees men from the fascist control of priestcraft
5) To God Alone Be The Glory--this is the ultimate reason for whatsoever comes to pass

I believe that the Scriptures teach that the heart of the gospel is not "justification by faith alone", but rather that the heart of the gospel is basically that "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is the Lord of the Universe". Perhaps you will agrree that this is so. In any event, I think that characterization number 2 is too "narrow" and focuses in on a narrow aspect of what the Gospel is.

Yes, it is so "central to the Gospel" that Jesus never mentions being justified by faith alone...He also never mentions that He will cover you with His imputed righteousness.

Maybe that really isn't the Gospel after all.

He does say quite a bit about love, repentance, forgiveness, being humble, and prayer...


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

......- for one who really analyzes it and can move beyond the cliches and polemics.

I heartily endorse the spirit behind this and ask the reader to recognize when a poster is engaging in the use of strident rhetoric (e.g. "fascist control of priestcraft") as a substitute for substance. Such techniques, I suggest, implicitly try to seduce the reader from taking the hard path of responsible argument and seeks to carry the day through appeals to one of our baser instincts - the desire to see the world in terms of an evil and malevolent "them" and an innocent "us". This is not the Lord of the Rings.....

I have found that those Protestant and Catholics who move beyond the polemics and really sit down and begin with DEFINITIONS, we are closer than many people presume. I think some people have a vested interest in keeping us apart (devil?). Anyway, it is fascinating to sit down with a fellow Christian and go over our beliefs without trying to prove the other is wrong - but rather - find where we agree. I think a lot of you would be surprised.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Yes, it is so "central to the Gospel" that Jesus never mentions being justified by faith alone...He also never mentions that He will cover you with His imputed righteousness.

Maybe that really isn't the Gospel after all.

He does say quite a bit about love, repentance, forgiveness, being humble, and prayer...

Just to muddy the waters, I think that my assent to the proposition that we "are justified by faith alone" depends critically on exactly what one means by "faith". So for the sake of brevity, I will not expand on that any more, except to say that there is probably a form of "justification by faith alone" that I can accept as Scriptural.

One thing I feel more clear on is the issue of imputed righteousness. I think a strong case can be made against the assertion that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. So it looks like you and I agree on the issue of imputation, but probably most here will disagree with us.

 

[francisdesales]

Just to muddy the waters, I think that my assent to the proposition that we "are justified by faith alone" depends critically on exactly what one means by "faith". So for the sake of brevity, I will not expand on that any more, except to say that there is probably a form of "justification by faith alone" that I can accept as Scriptural.

Oh, I agree. If you make the definition of faith to include a way of life in love, then I can see that we are saved by faith alone. Scriptures sometimes includes this broad definition of faith. Unfortunately, when the reformers insist on faith APART from repentance, or love, or forgiveness, it is not Scriptural.

One thing I feel more clear on is the issue of imputed righteousness. I think a strong case can be made against the assertion that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. So it looks like you and I agree on the issue of imputation, but probably most here will disagree with us.

I think Luther misinterpeted Romans terribly. While Paul does speak of a "legal" justification, he goes much further, saying that man is "infused" with the presence of the Spirit. We actually BECOME new creations. God recreates us. There is no need to call us "piles of manure" when God has remade us with the purpose of becoming man fully realized. In Christ, we CAN follow the guidelines of the Beatitudes. I am not sure why people do not realize that there is a fundamental change after we receive the Spirit. Maybe someone can explain it, but it is as if the Spirit wouldn't dare come to us and transform us, so God the Father must call "evil" "good" by legal definition - not reality... This "trickery" is beyond the Scriptures.

I am happy that we agree on such issues. I prefer finding places where we agree rather than arguing.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Now I do not know everything about the Catholic Church.....but the name "Roman Catholic Church-state". means nothing nor is it anything official......

You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are trying to deceive uninformed non-Catholics you meet here in cyber-space. Lying to non-Catholics has been an official favorite of Catholics since the Council of Constance--November, 16, 1414. So, I would say the latter applies here.

However, for your edification, you might consider the fact that the Roman Catholic Church-state still teaches that the pope has temporal power over all governments in the world. Then you might consider the fact that Roman Catholicism officially teaches that there can be no separation of church and state--Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. This is why popes demanded crusades. This is why Cardinal Pacelli got the Reich-Concordant signed with Hitler before he became Pius XII (Hitler was a good Catholic his entire life, so was Mussolini, Franco...all fascist dictators...just like the current pope...who was Hitler youth). This is why little pope Innocent III fumed at the idea of Habeas Corpus and worked against it. 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. Isn't that sweet.

The Vatican is a sovereign state, and that is why it can not be sued for all those Catholic priests molesting little children, even though it obviously knew and did everything in its power to see that it continued unopposed. Remember, the pope is head over all those homosexual pedophiles. The direct connection from Vatican to local diocese can NOT be denied, and thus the Roman Catholic Church is also a State.

sola fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Show #1 in Scripture or from early Church history, "axiom" or not.

Boy, the Catholics are really striking out here.
Let me recommend that you take a course in logic, maybe geometry.
Sola Scriptura means that the Bible Alone is the Axiom of Christianity.
You do not demonstrate axioms.
So when you ask a Protestant to do so, then you show your ignorance.

Such a mistake reminds me of pope leo's teaching: "ignorance is the mother of devotion."
No better way to insure people stay Catholic than by not teaching them.

Scripture specifically says we are not justified by faith alone so #2 is non-Biblical.

Sorry, but I have actually read the Book of James. If you would read it, then you would see that James is teaching how one man can demonstrate to another man that he has been justified by faith alone (James 2:18: "shew me...and I will shew thee..."). James is not teaching the doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone. 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. Catholicism is so self-referentially absurd.

In #3 how does sola-Gratia assume absolute predestination?

Grace is not a substance that is infused, but it is an attribute of God.
God has decided who he will give faith to and who He will not. Romans 9:12-23, Ephesians 1:4 and 11, and Ephesians 2:1-10.

#4. Been Catholic my whole life, never heard the term "priestcraft". (let alone, that evil "fascist" priestcraft)

Read "50 Years In The Church Of Rome" by Charles Chiniquy and I'm sure you'll see it used a few more times. By the way, he was a Catholic priest.

so can't we all just get along????

No, to believe the Bible is to simultaneously reject Roman Catholicism.
Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even Muslims have one big thing in common...they all teach that man is justified before their god by faith and works.

Christianity, that is, Calvinism, teaches that man is Justified by Faith Alone.

sola fide,
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Have you found any useage of this term before 1400? The commonly held false teaching of Protestants is that the Roman Catholic Church came into existence during Constantine. However, as my previous posts note, there is no historical evidence of this invention. Historical documents put this term's beginning with the Reformation.

Who's historical documents? How can any Catholic know for sure, Rome has been burning anything that criticizes it for centuries. This fact alone makes Catholic historians suspect. And let's remember that the Council of Constance states clearly that Catholics can lie to those outside the Catholic Church. Your probably lying. Remember Rome's dictum: the end justifies the means. Find that Catholic teaching in the Bible!

Vatican City is a political state in Italy, not the "Roman Catholic Church".

The authority comes from the top down, so the pope has control over all of his minions. Of course, the Vatican does not recognize the laity as part of the "church". So, yes the Roman Catholic Church is a state.

Oh boy. Well, you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how false they are.

Oh no, according to pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, I am not entitled to my opinion, and neither are you, nor anyone else in the United States. But, according to our Protestant produced Constitution of the United States of America I am entitled to my opinion, no matter how much it upsets that anti-Christ the pope.

Do you have any Scriptures to support that the pope is the antichrist

1) Antichrist is one who teaches the doctrines of the devil
2) Anyone claiming Christ's authority on earth and who forbids individuals to marry and abstain from meats is teaching the doctrines of the devil (1 Timothy 1-4)
3) The pope is someone claiming Christ's authority and who forbids individuals to marry and abstain from meats (priests forbidden to marry--forbidden to eat meat on friday)
Therefore, the pope is Antichrist

Now, what more can a Catholic ask for? You got 4 verses and a syllogism proving that the pope is Antichrist! What a deal.

All those "alones" sort of defeats the meaning of ALONE, doesn't it? Is it Christ alone? Grace alone? Faith alone? God alone? The Bible alone? Which one????

Sorry, but your equivocating.

First of all, Protestantism is NOT "diametrically opposed" to Catholicism - for one who really analyzes it and can move beyond the cliches and polemics.

Wow, what was Luther thinking, standing there all by himself, defying pope and emperor Charles V, demanding to be shown from Scripture alone? Why didn't someone tell Torquemada just how much the Jews and Muslims had in common with the Catholics on that Iberian peninsula? Think of the genocide that could have been prevented. Your "Evangelical and Catholics Together Nonsense" isn't working, but you probably figured that out by now. Your just hoping others won't pay attention.

And secondly, Catholicism is not based on human merit, but on God's graces given to man and man's response to God's graces.

As I said earlier, Catholicism and Islam are so very alike. They both teach faith and works, that is, synergism. Now, Catholicism teaches, concerning salvation, that Christ does his part and man does his part. Now if you have studied fractions, I say this because some here have not studied geometry, then you will know that this makes Christ but half a savior. However, the Bible teaches that Christ is completely the savior, and that salvation, start to finish is the work of God--Psalm 3:8 and John 6:29 and Romans 3:28 and Revelation 1:8.

sola fide,
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

I believe that the Scriptures teach that the heart of the gospel is not "justification by faith alone", but rather that the heart of the gospel is basically that "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is the Lord of the Universe".

Drew, your dead wrong. The Gospel is not "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord of the Universe." If this is all you believe, then you are not a Christian. You need to study the doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone and learn what the Gospel is.

Your wanna-be all-inclusive gospel does not even mention Christ's vicarious living and dying for the sins of His people. Your gospel does not assert expiation for sin, nor propitiation of God's wrath. Your gospel can not, and does not, even begin to explain how God's perfect law can be satisfied. Your gospel does not assert imputation of guilt, nor imputation of Christ's righteousness. The Christ of the Bible is not just the Lord of the universe, but He is the Lord Our Righteousness--Jeremiah 23:6 !

In other words, your gospel has no basis for how a man is to be just before a Holy God. You say that Christ rose from the dead, well so did Lazarus. You say that Jesus is Lord of the Universe, but so does every other cult who wishes to fool the masses. The devil believes as much, in fact, he witnessed it.

If your going to sum up the Gospel, at least do it by quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
You will note how Paul, unlike you, asserts Christ's substitutionary work when he says, "how Christ died FOR OUR SINS..."

This is a good example of how Catholics simply have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to defining the Gospel.

Like I said, the heart of the Gospel is Justification By Faith Alone.

sola fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

I do not think this is playing fair. If God has truly pre-destined all things, then He has, in a fully sufficient sense, pre-destined the "fascist" behaviour of these priests. And yet I would suggest that the structure of your argument appeals to the reader to see these priests as the causal source of the "fascist" behaviour.

Perhaps that is not your intent. Perhaps you are indeed being consistent and believe indeed that the priests are merely irresistably acting out a script drawn up for them by God in the deep mists of time. Well, in that case, you have cleared yourself on the matter of consistency but at the apparent loss of any substantial overall point. Because, if the priests "fascism" has been pre-destined by God, then you seem to be invoking a concept - namely freedom as in "this frees men from...." that seems to have no place in a universe where everything is pre-destined, including any actions of these men whose alleged "freedom" you want them to gain.

Typical Catholic/Atheist/Agnostic/Arminian response to Biblical determinism.
You assume human autonomy, a definition of responsibility which depends upon human autonomy, and a failure to consider, perhaps you have never heard of, the fact that God is free to work through second causes. But, this is what happens when your definitions do not come from the Bible. Romans 9:10-23 is how Paul answers such as you.

If you want to disagree with the Absolute Predestination of all things, then please realize that your disagreement asserts human free will apart from God. I will require a definition of "human free will", "human responsibility", and I will need to see you prove such from the Bible Alone. Of course, no one ever has. But maybe you will do better than Erasmus.

sola fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

God has decided who he will give faith to and who He will not. Romans 9:12-23, Ephesians 1:4 and 11, and Ephesians 2:1-10.

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

Romans 9 is about how God has been faithful to the covenant with national Israel and, more specifically, the "potter's account" in verses 20 - 23 is Paul's explanation of how God "has the right" to use national Israel for a specific purpose in his redemptive plans. It has nothing to do with matters of individual persons being elected to receive or not receive faith.

The fact that Romans 9 and 10 is all about the covenant with national Israel is clear and I suggest that the evidence for this is overwheming. I shall return to this. In a context where Paul is clearly explaining things about national Israel, it makes no sense to have him suddenly go off on a tangent and make theological statements about individuals being pre-destined to saving faith (whether Jew or Gentile or whatever).

What has Paul been talking about just prior to his giving the potter account? He has been talking about a hardening - the hardening of Pharoah. Why has Pharoah been hardened? To effect a great act of redemption of God's part - the deliverance of the Hebrews out of Egypt. It then follows that Paul's giving of the potter's account should also address a hardening that takes place in order to effect great redemptive purpose. Who is being hardened? Israel is being hardened. What is the great redemptive act? - accumulating the sin of the world onto national Israel so that it can then be transferred onto her Messiah. I will provide arguments for all this in other posts.

Now back to Romans 9 (and 10) being all about the covenant: Note the following from Romans 10:

"But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down)"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming."

Now consider the following from Deuteronomy 30:

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Is anyone going to deny that Paul is "transcribing" from this text in Deuteronomy. But what is Deuteronomy 30 all about?

It is about covenant renewal. Starting at verse 1 we have

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes [a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.

This clear reference to the covenant - and specifically the element of covenant renewal - comes at the end of a retelling of the covennat story that begins in Romans 9. Its all there - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the disobedience of the people to the covenant, exile, and here in this text - covenant renewal.

If you come to Romans 9 wanting it to affirm a belief that you bring to the text about individuals being predestined, you can always come to vv 20-23 and claim that your belief is supported. But you do so at the price of ignoring a powerful body of evidence that shows this material is about the "election" of Israel. If one ignores context, almost any position can be argued for.

 

[Drew]

The Gospel is not "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord of the Universe." If this is all you believe, then you are not a Christian.

The gospel is not simply that Jesus has died for your sins and that if you believe in Him you will get to go to Heaven. That is part of it, of course, but to claim that the gospel is all about "justification by faith" is to focus on a tiny narrow part of a much greater truth. The greater truth is that the kingdom of God has arrived and that Jesus is indeed the true ruler of the world. To restrict the scope of the term "gospel" to issues of how individuals are saved is to think "small". Jesus has been installed as Lord and those who have faith in Him are indeed saved. But so much more is going on. God has initiated a kingdom - and we as his followers are to participate as God's instruments in bringing that Kingdom into being. And this deals with social and political changes as well as inner transformation. The parables are coded messages from Jesus telling us what this kingdom is like. And they (the parables) are about so much more than "justification by faith alone" - they are about how we are to live and act to realize that kingdom.

And it also helps to think historically about what the word "gospel" actually meant to the people living in Paul's world. To quote from theologian NT Wright:

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.

Of course, I never claimed that the gospel does not include justification by faith - it does. But the gospel is bigger than this.

 

[dadof10]

Show #1 in Scripture or from early Church history, "axiom" or not.

Boy, the Catholics are really striking out here.
Let me recommend that you take a course in logic, maybe geometry.
Sola Scriptura means that the Bible Alone is the Axiom of Christianity.
You do not demonstrate axioms.
So when you ask a Protestant to do so, then you show your ignorance.

Such a mistake reminds me of pope leo's teaching: "ignorance is the mother of devotion."
No better way to insure people stay Catholic than by not teaching them.

I'm so sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the word "axiom". I figured you mis-used it, so instead of calling you names and attacking your lack of education, I simply asked you to show me where the doctrine of SS was found either in Scripture or history (which is why I used quotation marks around the word). I won't make that mistake again. I will try to be as charitable as possible.

Let me get this right. You think that a doctrine that was not even introduced into Christianity until the 16th century, and has been hotly debated for the last 450 years is an AXIOM??? I guess if you can't prove a doctrine you get to pull the "axiom" card. Here is the definition of axiom:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

The false, man-made doctrine of SS is FAR from being "universally accepted ". Let me give you two doctrines that are very close to being axioms.

1. Sola-Scriptura, as defined by Calvinists is not in Scripture.
2. Sola-Scriptura, as defined by Calvinists was invented until the 16th century.

Scripture specifically says we are not justified by faith alone so #2 is non-Biblical.

Sorry, but I have actually read the Book of James. If you would read it, then you would see that James is teaching how one man can demonstrate to another man that he has been justified by faith alone (James 2:18: "shew me...and I will shew thee..."). James is not teaching the doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone.

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

So, is man justified by works, or by faith alone? Now would be a good time to pull the "axiom" card again. Just claim sola-Fide is an "axiom of Christianity", then you don't have to defend or justify it. :P

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.

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:

Who's historical documents? How can any Catholic know for sure, Rome has been burning anything that criticizes it for centuries. This fact alone makes Catholic historians suspect. And let's remember that the Council of Constance states clearly that Catholics can lie to those outside the Catholic Church. Your probably lying. Remember Rome's dictum: the end justifies the means.

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

Read "50 Years In The Church Of Rome" by Charles Chiniquy and I'm sure you'll see it used a few more times. By the way, he was a Catholic priest.

Wow, if an anti-Catholic ex-priest says it, it must be true. :-D Is Mr. Chiniquy's book on the same shelf as Dave Hunt's and "ex-priest" Alberto Rivera's? I guess this book made it out of the Vatican inferno. Probably smuggled out by a pregnant nun who didn't want to abort her baby and bury the body in the tunnel that led in between the Rectory and Convent. LOL

If you want to find out what the Catholic Church really teaches, try Catholic sources. I know if I want to know what Calvivists teach I will not go to anti-Calvinists to find out. That would be un-fair and ignorant.

One more thing, lighten up, Red. Forums are supposed to be fun.

 

[Drew]

I believe that the Scriptures teach that the heart of the gospel is not "justification by faith alone", but rather that the heart of the gospel is basically that "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is the Lord of the Universe".

Drew, your dead wrong. The Gospel is not "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord of the Universe." If this is all you believe, then you are not a Christian. You need to study the doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone and learn what the Gospel is.

Your wanna-be all-inclusive gospel does not even mention Christ's vicarious living and dying for the sins of His people. Your gospel does not assert expiation for sin, nor propitiation of God's wrath.

And you need to learn how to read and interpret the English language. No doubt it will suit your purposes to portray me as writing something other than what I wrote. But so that there will be no misunderstanding, here is the entire post to which RB has responded with the above. And, of course, he has erroneously ascribed to me a lack of belief in justification by faith:

I believe that the Scriptures teach that the heart of the gospel is not "justification by faith alone", but rather that the heart of the gospel is basically that "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is the Lord of the Universe". Perhaps you will agrree that this is so. In any event, I believe that the Scriptures teach that the heart of the gospel is not "justification by faith alone", but rather that the heart of the gospel is basically that "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is the Lord of the Universe". Perhaps you will agrree that this is so. In any event, I think that characterization number 2 is too "narrow" and focuses in on a narrow aspect of what the Gospel is.

I suggest that I wrote was very clear - I never denied justification by faith. In fact, I affirmed it clearly when I write that your characterisation of the gospel was too narrow - I clearly state that justification by faith is indeed one aspect of the gospel.

 

[Devekut]

I agree with Drew,

While justification by faith (if by "faith" we include living in love, mercy and charity) is important I think to call it the "heart of the gospel" is somewhat of a mis-appropriated emphasis on Romans. The stress on salvation by faith, not the law, was precisely directed at a specific problem within the Christian community at the time.

If we take the New Testament as a whole we will see that "justification by faith" is not the primary emphasis of the text, especially of we mean to constantly place justification in dichotomy with "works". This dichotomy is present only when it was neccessary to contrast against those who were forcing the Law on the Christian community.

The heart of the Gospel, I do believe, is that in the person of Jesus of Nazareth the God of the Hebrew Scriptures has been made known in an unprecedented and unique way. Drew described this as "the Lordship of Jesus Christ". More than anything, the New Testament is stressing the continuity between Christ and the Hebrew Bible. It is constantly pointing back with scripture, allegory, literay structure and narrative parallels. The heart of the New Testament is that Judaism, through the universality of Christ, is now a universal religion.

 

[fcs25]

I am catholic because of the historical record.The church has existed for almost 2000yrs not so for the protestants.They didn't even exist until appx 500yrs ago.

 

[francisdesales]

Drew, your dead wrong. The Gospel is not "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is Lord of the Universe." If this is all you believe, then you are not a Christian.

Are there any moderators out there who care to instruct this fellow that this sort of judgment is not welcome here?

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

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.

You speak of Covenant, but have no understanding of Covenant theology. Notice Paul states clearly, "Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" Romans 9:6. The context, even before we hit verse eleven, establishes that God specifically recognizes some (the individuals He elected), and not all (the individual reprobates are excluded). True Israel is made up of all of the elect that are part of it. The reprobates are not considered to be true Israel when it comes to covenant. The same is with the United States. The true U.S. is made up of all of the elect that are citizens of this nation.

Of course, Paul goes on to mention the individual Pharaoh and then the individual Moses. Pharaoh's purpose, as anyone can plainly see, was to glorify God in his destruction and damnation. Amen.

Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

The gospel is not simply that Jesus has died for your sins and that if you believe in Him you will get to go to Heaven. That is part of it, of course, but to claim that the gospel is all about "justification by faith" is to focus on a tiny narrow part of a much greater truth. The greater truth is that the kingdom of God has arrived and that Jesus is indeed the true ruler of the world. To restrict the scope of the term "gospel" to issues of how individuals are saved is to think "small". Jesus has been installed as Lord and those who have faith in Him are indeed saved. But so much more is going on. God has initiated a kingdom - and we as his followers are to participate as God's instruments in bringing that Kingdom into being. And this deals with social and political changes as well as inner transformation. The parables are coded messages from Jesus telling us what this kingdom is like. And they (the parables) are about so much more than "justification by faith alone" - they are about how we are to live and act to realize that kingdom.

You need to read John chapter 6. You sound just like those fools in that chapter who ignored the Gospel, and only sought to make Jesus king of this world. We read, "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed" John 6:15. You have delusions of the theonomic nature, which Christ always forbid his disciples to engage in. Jesus states, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" John 18:36. Finally, remember that Jesus forbid us to lord it over one another. This is one reason Catholics always fight to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people. For they know that they are exposed when Christ states, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But It Shall Not Be So Among You" Matthew 20:25-26[emphasis mine].

You denigrate Justification By Faith Alone, but Jesus points out the simple truth which is contrary to your post-millennial dreams of a golden age. Christ states, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?" Matthew 16:26. Notice that Christ believes that our own soul is more important than anything we might acquire from this little world. Those that are interested in following the devil will pay head to what he offered Christ, "All these things [temporal power over the world] will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me" Matthew 4:9. Dostoyevsky's book "The Brothers Karamazov" has a famous chapter in it titled, "The Grand Inquisitor." In that chapter, Dostoyevsky explains that it is the Roman Catholic Church who accepted all three offers the devil made to Christ (in Matt. chapter 4).

If you understood Justification By Faith Alone, then you would know that it is this exact doctrine which ended the Dark Ages and gave the common man, held slave to a Catholic/feudal system, a purpose for performing his particular calling in the world to the glory of God.

To quote from theologian NT Wright:

NT Wright is a poor scholar.
His work has been refuted thoroughly by men like John W. Robbins.
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.

Of course, I never claimed that the gospel does not include justification by faith - it does. But the gospel is bigger than this

It is called Justification By Faith Alone.
Sola Fide is the heart of the Gospel, but like all doctrines, it is logically and systemically connected to other doctrines.

Red Beetle