Are you a Baptist with a big B? Chuck certainly was.

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
It remains trash.
[/quote]

"Proper" does not equate to "exhaustive".  Get a dictionary.  And a stronger ability to make coherent rather than pedantic arguments.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
It remains trash.
[/quote]

And for the record, it appears that rsc2a is arguing that knowledge of the true gospel is not necessary for a person to be saved, contrary to Romans 10.

 

[rsc2a]

And for the record, it appears that rsc2a is arguing that knowledge of the true gospel is not necessary for a person to be saved, contrary to Romans 10.

No...I just read things in context.

 

[rsc2a]

Allow me to elaborate (and possibly dispel any false notions):

Do I think doctrine is important?

- Absolutely. Paul is constant in his reminders for people to guard their doctrine vigilantly. Correct doctrine (orthodoxy) generally leads to correct practice (orthopraxy) and false doctrine (either heterodoxy or heresy) generally leads to incorrect or downright heretical practices. Doctrine gives us the why and sometimes the how when it comes to practice of our faith.

Do I think correct doctrine is essential for salvation?

- Not even a little bit.

Jesus didn't say...By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have correct doctrine.

He said... By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

John continues in his first epistle:

"If anyone says,

 

[Izdaari]

Galatians > James?
James > Galatians?

Those who know me know that I'm a big fan of Galatians, and am not terribly thrilled about James. So much so that if you get tired of calling me Izzy, you might call me Auntie Nomian.  :-*

But, whether I like it or not, both books are in the Bible. Some Christians, including Catholics and some IFB's place rather more emphasis on James and less on Galatians than I think is proper. But unless they're overboard with it, I'm not about to write them out of Christian siblinghood over it.

 

[Ransom]

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.

You'll note the qualification I've underlined here - the initial grace is unmerited at the beginning of conversion.  The Roman Catholic system is semi-Augustinianism and has been since the time of Gregory I. God gets the ball rolling by giving enough grace to enable man to respond, and then he himself can merit further grace, as s. 2010 continues:

Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity,

"And for others"?  That is not the basis of sola gratia, that is the basis for the "Treasury of Merit" and a system of indulgences.

More basically, however, we do not "merit for ourselves" sanctifying grace.

and for the attainment of eternal life.

What the Hyles? We merit eternal life?

Sorry, but your smoke screen aside, the Romanists do not believe in sola gratia in any way, shape, or form. I wonder whether you properly understand the term. Certainly you don't understand Roman theology.

I'll finally note that LAMER basically made two key points that I quoted above: 1) post-salvation, Romanist soteriology ceases to be "grace alone"; and 2) it is not God's grace alone that keeps someone saved.  I asked you to show me where he contradicted the catechism; you, instead, quoted a passage that confirmed it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Your statements are garbage.[/quote]

The fact is that you can't handle the truth.  You've avoided it at every turn, from ignoring statements on Trent, to the "merit" mentioned in the very quotes you cite.  Rome is staunchly entrenched in a works-based form of salvation.  They blur the lines between justification and sanctification, making a person think that they must adhere to the sacramental codswollop in order to be finally saved.  The ground and basis for our salvation is the finished work of Christ on the cross 2000 years ago, not an ongoing MASSacre of Christ by the holy father commanding Him to become present in the wine and wafer.  Their errors, including mariolatry, superstition, baptismal regeneration, and a host of others are legion, but you and Colson et al keep burying your heads up your, arse, and continue to cuddle up to the cult that has the blood of the martyrs on her hands.

No...I just read things in context.

You wouldn't know context if it jumped up and bit you in the posterior.

Rom 10:14 John Gill
and how shall they hear without a preacher? or there is no hearing without, preaching; there may be reading without it, and this ought to be where there is preaching, to see that what is preached is agreeably to the Scriptures; but there is no hearing the word explained without preaching; explaining the word is preaching. There is no hearing of Christ, and salvation by him, without the preaching of the Gospel; the usual and ordinary way of hearing from God, and of Christ, is by the ministry of the word: this shows not only the necessity and usefulness of the Gospel ministry, but also points out the subject matter of it, which is Christ, and him crucified. They that preach ought to preach concerning the person of Christ, his offices, grace, righteousness, blood, sacrifice and satisfaction, otherwise men may hear the preacher, and not hear Christ.

That's just one commentator's understanding of the passage, and I could cite scores more, but you don't want truth, you want to embrace your error.  If any man be ignorant, let  him be ignorant still.

 

[rsc2a]

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.

You'll note the qualification I've underlined here - the initial grace is unmerited at the beginning of conversion.  The Roman Catholic system is semi-Augustinianism and has been since the time of Gregory I. God gets the ball rolling by giving enough grace to enable man to respond, and then he himself can merit further grace, as s. 2010 continues:

Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity,[//quote]

...

More basically, however, we do not "merit for ourselves" sanctifying grace.

and for the attainment of eternal life.

What the Hyles? We merit eternal life?

Seriously.....why do people always ignore the surrounding text? Whether it's the Bible or history books, it's a horrible way to read anything...

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

"And for others"?  That is not the basis of sola gratia, that is the basis for the "Treasury of Merit" and a system of indulgences.

And part of the reason I'm not Roman Catholic. 

Sorry, but your smoke screen aside, the Romanists do not believe in sola gratia in any way, shape, or form. I wonder whether you properly understand the term. Certainly you don't understand Roman theology.

2001b - Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing

This article breaks down the entire section in the Catholic catechism to show how strongly they confirm sola gratia. But, go ahead....keep insisting that you know more about the Catholic faith than Catholic theologians....

 

[rsc2a]

The fact is that you can't handle the truth.  You've avoided it at every turn, from ignoring statements on Trent, to the "merit" mentioned in the very quotes you cite.

Funny....I'm just reading what their catechism says.

Seems to me that  "The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace" would mean that even their meritorious works are pure grace. But then, what do I know?

Rome is staunchly entrenched in a works-based form of salvation.  They blur the lines between justification and sanctification, making a person think that they must adhere to the sacramental codswollop in order to be finally saved.

Why do you hate the book of James? Why do you hate the parable of the sheep and goats?

The ground and basis for our salvation is the finished work of Christ on the cross 2000 years ago, not an ongoing MASSacre of Christ by the holy father commanding Him to become present in the wine and wafer. Their errors, including mariolatry, superstition, baptismal regeneration, and a host of others are legion, but you and Colson et al keep burying your heads up your, arse,...

1. I'm not Catholic so I definitely don't agree with all their theology.
2. I definitely don't think I have it all figured out.
3. I think all those passages on love and living peaceably actually mean something.

...and continue to cuddle up to the cult that has the blood of the martyrs on her hands.

You really should study history. "He who is without sin...."

No...I just read things in context.

You wouldn't know context if it jumped up and bit you in the posterior.

Says the one who denies the existence of the Church universal...

That's just one commentator's understanding of the passage, and I could cite scores more, but you don't want truth, you want to embrace your error.  If any man be ignorant, let  him be ignorant still.

You don't think the Holy Spirit can preach? You don't like Romans 2? You don't recognize who Paul was talking to and about?

 

[Aviator]

You really should read the Catholic catechism instead of Chick tracts if you want to know about Catholic theology...

No, stupid, you should live the life of a Roman Catholic.  Never in my Catholic upbringing did anyone ever talk about salvation by grace through faith or any such thing until evangelical Christians started making some anti-Catholic waves on television.  You did the sacraments, you prayed to Mary, you confessed to the priest, and you were all set. The Catholics know how to play the game, and in the United States, they teach the faithful how to use fundamentalist terminology.  Go down to south or central America or over to Spain or Italy, and try talking to the Catholics there about "salvation by grace," and watch them look at you like you have two or three heads. 

 

[rsc2a]

You really should read the Catholic catechism instead of Chick tracts if you want to know about Catholic theology...

No, stupid...

This is why I'm ignoring the rest of your post...

 

[ALAYMAN]

You really should read the Catholic catechism instead of Chick tracts if you want to know about Catholic theology...

No, stupid, you should live the life of a Roman Catholic.  Never in my Catholic upbringing did anyone ever talk about salvation by grace through faith or any such thing until evangelical Christians started making some anti-Catholic waves on television.  You did the sacraments, you prayed to Mary, you confessed to the priest, and you were all set. The Catholics know how to play the game, and in the United States, they teach the faithful how to use fundamentalist terminology.  Go down to south or central America or over to Spain or Italy, and try talking to the Catholics there about "salvation by grace," and watch them look at you like you have two or three heads.

He won't listen to you, because it cuts against what he'd rather believe. 

I have a brother who was the proverbial doubting Thomas.  He claims to have had a born again experience in his middle years of life, but recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  It took him years to be persuaded, but his wife is a "good Catholic" and in the end, just like with his father-in-law, he wore down and kept peace in the family.  I've had long conversations with him about theological matters, and I hope that he is trusting Christ alone, but the dogma they preach takes its toll, and it comes out in their language/practice.  Getting baptized to be saved is a must.  Trusting baptism rather than Christ is trusting in your own works.  Doing penance, praying the rosary, taking the eucharist, and on and on it goes, all go to the heart of the defective understanding and practice(s) regarding sola gratia and sola fide.

On a similar scale, I worked with a fella who used to read the Bible every day at lunch.  I noticed it was a different version all the time.  Being somewhat more agressively KJVo at the time I was curious as to why he read from numerous versions, so I asked him.  He said it was pretty much a hobby, but when I pressed him on his salvation he told me an amazing story.  He was raised a Roman Catholic, but saved as an adult at a crusade.  I probed a little about his upbringing in Roman Catholicism, not wanting my preconceived prejudices to taint my view of how they worship.  He said almost verbatim what you typed above.  As a "practicing Catholic" he did all the things the priest told him to do and NEVER cracked his Bible, and thought he was good to go.  After hearing that I had no problem with him reading ANY good translation on his own as often as he desired.

 

[Aviator]

You really should read the Catholic catechism instead of Chick tracts if you want to know about Catholic theology...

No, stupid...

This is why I'm ignoring the rest of your post...

No, you're ignoring it (sure you are, lol) because you are a thin-skinned little sissy.  First, you throw out an insult; then you whine about being called stupid.  Grow a set of (edited Admin), read the post, admit you're wrong and that you don't what in blazes you're talking about, and move on.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm sure it's true that most rank-and-file Catholics don't know much about the actual doctrines of their religion.

But the same could probably be said about most rank-and-file Protestants.

People like us, who amuse ourselves by debating theology on the internet, are unusual. That would include the Catholic posters over at CAF, who seem quite well informed.

 

[ALAYMAN]

While it's undeniably true that rank and file members of Average Church USA will be less informed and more inarticulate at expressing their denominational distinctives accurately, I doubt the run-of-the-mill pewsitter in most IFB or conservative evangelical churches thinks that their salvation depends upon their confession to the pastor, baptism, or partaking in the Lord's Supper.  By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that.  Anecdotal evidence aside, to hear "fundamentalists" argue that the reformation principles of the Solas are indistinguishable from Rome's soteriology is utterly laughable, or depressingly sad.

 

[rsc2a]

While it's undeniably true that rank and file members of Average Church USA will be less informed and more inarticulate at expressing their denominational distinctives accurately, I doubt the run-of-the-mill pewsitter in most IFB or conservative evangelical churches thinks that their salvation depends upon their confession to the pastor, baptism, or partaking in the Lord's Supper...

Catholics aren't the only ones who see the sacraments as a "means of grace".  ??? Several very mainline Protestant traditions do also. 

By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that.  Anecdotal evidence aside, to hear "fundamentalists" argue that the reformation principles of the Solas are indistinguishable from Rome's soteriology is utterly laughable, or depressingly sad.

1 - No one is arguing that Catholic soteriology is the same as others. Methodists and Presbys have different views on soteriology too. But no one (except divisive extremists) would say Methodists or Presbys aren't Christian.

2 - People really should learn about the Reformer's views on the sacraments before handling a topic like this.

 

[Ransom]

Catholics aren't the only ones who see the sacraments as a "means of grace".  Several very mainline Protestant traditions do also.

The fact that you apparently think the Catholics and those Protestants mean the same thing by the phrase, "means of grace," only goes to confirm our suspicion that you are in fact ignorant of the distinction.

 

[jeri fletcher]

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at thereformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but *we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men".--Spurgeon

What does this mean?
"our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents."

How can you have honest adherents to forgotten principles? for a season? yet "always exist in an unbroken line"?

*"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." 1 Tim 1:4

"yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. "

Well I guess that was before IFB, Hyles and Churchianity, and Baptist Teen Gulags.

 

[Mathew Ward]

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at thereformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men".--Spurgeon

Obviously he wasn't familiar with some of the x'er Baptist crowd.

 

[T-Bone]

I still have yet to see a response to the declaration of the Council of Trent as it was cited.  Is someone's misreading of a catachism have more authority than a clear statement from the magisterium?  Not surprised about the misreading by little thin-skinned one...already proved that was his/her or its mode of operation with Scripture.