And this is a good indication of how you aren't actually interested in discussing the issues. YOU'RE the one who asked for his credentials in the first place. If you're looking for games, I think you'd be better off elsewhere.
Mississippi church refuses to marry black couple
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
Knight Templar
Commodore
cooleddie74;6733295 They've somehow gotten it all wrong and been misled. I mean said:
Knight Templar said:
Why should what one likes to do with their genitals?
Why should which church they belong to make a difference? They believe in the Christian God and in his son Jesus Christ. They read and believe the Holy Bible. Do you think over 1 billion Roman Catholics are going to go to hell and suffer just for being Catholic when a lot of them actually line up with you on quite a few beliefs, including same-sex marriage and abortion?
^Nice way to wiggle out of it Peacemaker.
And they claim I move the goalposts
Of course, saying I wiggled out of it and demonstrating it aren't the same thing.
I've demonstrated that you don't know what the definition of a strawman is, and I did with direct quotes.
All we've got from you in response is "nana nana boo-boo."
That's because you can't admit your own mistakes, and it's because you can't keep up with your own words - we have to do it for you.
You asked for them, or have you lost track of that discussion? One supposes you asked for them to level an insult, and insult which backfired.
I gave the year of my undergraduate education and the name of my alma mater; I can give you dates for graduate education, etc., and I offered to photocopy my licensure for you. But you didn't take me up on the offer. You won't give you own name or place of residence, so I don't feel particularly driven to disclose my name or post a copy of diploma. I can even point you to examples of my own original work on the internet and in print, but one supposes that would just be bragging too much. So, really, we have as much evidence for my credentials as we do for your say-so story about your place of residence. At least you're consistent. You have one set of standards for us, another for yourself.
That's cute and all, but I peg my responses to yours, and you're discussing replies made that are so pegged. So, if I'm "agenda driven" it is because I'm rebutting your agenda. Like I stated, it's one thing to assert a position; it is another to argue it. You do a lot of the former; little of the latter. I suggest you bone up on your material before you engage these issues further. Learn to argue your position, not assert it.
For example, above you see a post (actually two) that not only define what a straw man argument is, but give examples, and these examples are further pegged to a real discussion - two in fact.
These are then broken down so that even a high school student should, in my opinion, be able to grasp them.
They show what a straw man is, beginning with a definition, then proceed to go as far as to use numbers and letters to make it easy for you. That is posted with a twofold aim: (1) to refute your errors (2) to actually teach you and hope you'll action use your noodle and learn something. But, instead, you use stroll right on by that.
Open up your mind a little. I know I'm hard on you, and that ticks you off. Learn to get some personal distance and instead of just reacting take some time and learn. You may disagree over what the Bible says, but above that's just a straight up Logic 101 lesson. There shouldn't even be any controversy over that.
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope that KT will pay attention, and this is where I'll do a little apologetics work too.
KT's reply will begin with "They aren't CoC...CoC = 1 true Restorationist Church and getting them sins washed away in believer's baptism...all others = no true Christian.
I'm going to agree with KT to a point on Roman Catholicism, but, unlike KT, I'm going to draw some distinctions to explain it that look nothing like his.
This question isn't one of numbers. Rather, it's one related to way Protestants and Catholics view the Gospel. I deny Roman Catholicism because of the way we differ not over the identity of Christ, but rather over the nature of the Gospel, specifically the doctrine of justification. In addition, there are numerous errors like papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas and the underwriting theology of the treasury of merit that exemplify these differences.
Now - I would extend more charity to a Roman Catholic in the pew than I would to a priest, bishop, or the Pope - because each level has a different level of understanding.
That's because as a Protestant of the Reformed stripe, I draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith.
To be a Christian is to be, among other things, a Christian believer. One must believe certain things, and not believe certain other, contrary things. On the one hand, some dogmas are damnable dogmas. On the other hand, the Bible lays out certain saving articles of faith.
This is God's criterion, not mine. I didn't invent it. By the same token, how God applies that criterion in any individual case is up to God, not to me. I'm not the judge, God is the Judge.
To take a concrete example, Scripture teaches sola fide (Romans; Galatians). I'm saved by faith in Christ. And I'm saved by the sole and sufficient merit of Christ.
But in Catholic dogma, one is saved by the merit of Christ plus the merit of the saints plus one's own congruent merit. And this results in a divided faith.
Likewise in KT's faith - for I told him this just days ago and his response, if you'll recall was "well, that's what the Bible teaches) - one is saved by way (of faith in) the merits of Christ, membership in a Restorationist church, and having them thar sins washed away when you get baptized. That, too, is a divided faith. This is why I have characterized him as no true Christian - for the Bible doesn't mention membership in the one true Restorationist church, and I can, if pressed, show the CoC error that leads to the doctrine of justification by baptism. I'll add here that there is a sense in which while KT would deny it, his theology with respect to justification/salvation, eccelsiology,and baptism has much more in common with Roman Catholicism than it does anything in Protestantism, which is ironic given the Presbyterian and Baptist roots of his ecclesiastical community. It's as if the Reformation played out and somehow spat out the same errors the Reformers rejected. Savor the irony.
Now, in Reformed theology, we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith. For purposes of church membership, since we cannot know of a certainty who is or isn't saved, we only require a credible profession of faith.
A Catholic qua Catholic cannot offer a credible profession of faith. But whether a Catholic can offer a saving profession of faith is a different question. The answer, from my perspective varies on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to say who isn't saved than to say who is.
A “credible profession of faith” is a traditional term of art in Reformed circles. For an example, check out the following link:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/05d.html
To illustrate my point, any of the following creeds could supply the basis for a credible profession of faith:
1. The Thirty-Nine Articles
2. The Formula of Concord
3. The Baptist Faith & Message (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)
4. The C&MA statement of faith (http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/doctrine.jsp)
5. The JFJ statement of faith (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith)
6. The EFCA statement of faith (http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/)
7. The Campus Crusade statement of faith (http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html)
8. The AG statement of faith (http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm)
These are all broadly evangelical affirmations of faith. By contrast, Trent or Vatican II does not supply the basis for a credible profession of faith.
Remember, too, that Trent anathematizes my own faith, so it’s not as though Trent is being any more tolerant or charitable than I am.
Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike. Hence, it is possible for a Catholic to make a saving profession of faith even if he can’t make a credible profession of faith.
Knight Templar
Commodore
^I can honestly say that is interesting Peacemaker and has much worth considering.
That said, I might've ask this before, but in regards to the entire "faith vs. works" debate, how do you reconcile your ideas of salvation through faith with the book of James which seems heavily focused on showing "faith through works" and says twice in the book that "faith without works is dead"?
That said, I might've ask this before, but in regards to the entire "faith vs. works" debate, how do you reconcile your ideas of salvation through faith with the book of James which seems heavily focused on showing "faith through works" and says twice in the book that "faith without works is dead"?
I've answered that before, but I'm glad you asked because that's a fruitful question to ask.
First, go and read this: http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html Specifically 11, 13, and 14, and 16. It's easier to point you there than reproduce them here. These summarize the doctrines of justification, sanctification, saving faith, and good works and their role.
Salvation, in our theology is a bracket term for several things and context dependent. It can refer to: regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, or all 4 elements of salvation. Sometimes people confuse us with the antinomians, and this would come from your side when confusing the doctrine of perseverance of the saints with the antinomian doctrine of eternal security. These intersect, but they are not the same. We affirm the former, not the latter. This is why when you characterize my doctrine as antinominian, I deny it. No, we do not,for example, affirm that works have no role in salvation or that salvation is like a tattoo you get and never lose no matter what and all sorts of things I've read or heard stated over the years. That's antinomianism - that's eternal security. You find that in the works of people that espouse "free grace." A classic contrast would be, let's say, John MacArthur on "my" side of the theological divide and those of, these folks. That's not perserverance of the saints. I'd point out that Reformed theology is usually accused of being a version of "salvation by works" by these folks, not antinomian, ironic when you consider the opposite accusation comes to us from Roman Catholics. (Usually, this is because they are conflating "salvation" with "justification" (the antinominan objection) or in the case of Catholics and others like yourself "Saved by grace alone by faith alone" to mean the whole shebang, not justification by faith alone. "Salvation by grace alone refers to the root or ground of salvation, and via faith alone refers to the instrument of justification, not the sole instrument of salvation. Justification is one element of salvation itself. In Reformed Theology, Sola Fide (justification by faith alone) is a species of Sola Gratia (the ground and means of our salvation) which is Christ Alone (the Mediator of our salvation and the One on whom/in whom the merits alone around found). Again, read the Confession as starting point for what I'm articulating. That's a good summary.
What we are referring to here in this discussion isn't salvation qua salvation by faith. Rather, we're referring to salvation qua justification.
That should frame the discussion.
When referring to the doctrine "justification by faith"...Protestants are referring to:
1. The underwriting merits of the root of justification. In our theology, the merit is that of Christ alone (that is to say the sole and sufficient merits of Christ via the atonement and the application of the atonement via
2. The instrument of justification - faith, not works qua works and/or faith and works in tandem. For example, I've interacted with some Catholics, usually former Protestants, who have said to me: Christ's atonement covers our sins in the past up to conversion but then we work in tandem and build on those for those after. That's probably the worst of the views I've heard, but it's an obvious, easy example to compare. Roman Catholic theology is more complex on that, sometimes depending on the source material as well the person articulating it (it can be mighty hard to find the Magisterium, but I digress), but that's the general idea.
In Reformed theology (whether Presby or Baptist versions), the Holy Spirit by means of the Gospel, not baptism, regenerates, the result is faith in Christ, this becomes the instrument via which God declares a person "justified." This is because Christ actually redeemed that person. The Holy Spirit, when His timing is ready, does this, and God's providence oversees it to ensure it occurs. Sanctification will result, and that person will persevere from the end. He may stumble,even gravely and struggle, but he will not apostatize, and this is due to the preservation of the Holy Spirit. Put another way, there's a limit to what he can do. Pilgrim's Progress, by the way, is an excellent allegory of that whole process, if you've not read it. It was written by a Baptist.
Put another way, Protestant doctrine stands in contrast to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merit which is composed of the merits of Christ, the saints/church, and your own congruent merit (stuff you do,like, for example, the sacraments). To some extent, unlike your own group's ideas about baptismal regeneration as the instrument of application (as opposed to faith alone), this is bound up with their idea that grace is a substance that is conveyed by water (baptism) and the elements of the Eucharist (to take two concrete examples). The treasury of merit also underwrites several other Roman Catholic doctrines including the Marian dogmas and prayers to the saints.
In CoC theology, to take an example more familiar to you, the instruments (plural) would be baptism and faith. The classic reply to from my side is the same as the question of Scripture: was Abraham justified by circumcision? No, he was justified by faith (Romans). One of the cardinal reasons we disaffirm baptismal justification is that if true it would be functionally the same as circumcisional justification, the doctrine that Galatians explicitly denies. Some Protestants, namely Lutherans, affirm a form of baptismal regeneration, but that is indexed to faith in a way unlike your own. Since I'm not Lutheran, I won't go any further. For the record, I disagree with Presbyterians over their views on infant baptism - I just worship with them because they are closer and there are are only 2 Reformed Baptist churches near me, and one of those is 20 miles away. The PCA also doesn't require you to hold to their ideas on baptism to partake of the Lord's Supper or even be a member of their churches. Some Reformed Baptists are kinda funny about stuff like that.
Sorry that rabbit trail, anyhoo
The position that links justification to works (baptism or others at all) turns on two exegetical fallacies when reading James.
These are, as I've pointed out, and you were I hope just glossing over before when this has been pointed out:
SEMANTIC INCEST
This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide (Ijustfication by faith alone).
Or Paul’s use of “sanctification” is employed to interpret the sense of the word in Heb 10:29—and thereby disprove perseverance or special redemption.
But this is a fallacious procedure unless the disputant can show, independent of the comparison, that both writers are using the same word the same way.
SEMANTIC INFLATION
The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word.
For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.
In context, James is simply talking about the difference between an antinomian faith that says one thing and does another, (he opens the discussion, remember, with a talk on favoritism in the church) for example, a faith says "Love your neighbor as yourself" but does not, in fact, practice it. The comparison is between a deedless faith and a living fruitful faith, not about the grounds or instrument of justification in the confessional sense itself. That discussion is in Romans.
So, independent of the comparison, Paul and James are talking about two different things when they use the term "justify". James' discussion in general in James 2 is more like the position that Paul is articulating in Romans 6 and 7 than the framing he sets up in Romans 4 and 5. James also isn't using the term "justify" in the sense Paul is using it. Both exegetical fallacies are avoided. Justification by works, invoking James, would directly involve one or both of the exegetical fallacies above.
First, go and read this: http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html Specifically 11, 13, and 14, and 16. It's easier to point you there than reproduce them here. These summarize the doctrines of justification, sanctification, saving faith, and good works and their role.
Salvation, in our theology is a bracket term for several things and context dependent. It can refer to: regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, or all 4 elements of salvation. Sometimes people confuse us with the antinomians, and this would come from your side when confusing the doctrine of perseverance of the saints with the antinomian doctrine of eternal security. These intersect, but they are not the same. We affirm the former, not the latter. This is why when you characterize my doctrine as antinominian, I deny it. No, we do not,for example, affirm that works have no role in salvation or that salvation is like a tattoo you get and never lose no matter what and all sorts of things I've read or heard stated over the years. That's antinomianism - that's eternal security. You find that in the works of people that espouse "free grace." A classic contrast would be, let's say, John MacArthur on "my" side of the theological divide and those of, these folks. That's not perserverance of the saints. I'd point out that Reformed theology is usually accused of being a version of "salvation by works" by these folks, not antinomian, ironic when you consider the opposite accusation comes to us from Roman Catholics. (Usually, this is because they are conflating "salvation" with "justification" (the antinominan objection) or in the case of Catholics and others like yourself "Saved by grace alone by faith alone" to mean the whole shebang, not justification by faith alone. "Salvation by grace alone refers to the root or ground of salvation, and via faith alone refers to the instrument of justification, not the sole instrument of salvation. Justification is one element of salvation itself. In Reformed Theology, Sola Fide (justification by faith alone) is a species of Sola Gratia (the ground and means of our salvation) which is Christ Alone (the Mediator of our salvation and the One on whom/in whom the merits alone around found). Again, read the Confession as starting point for what I'm articulating. That's a good summary.
What we are referring to here in this discussion isn't salvation qua salvation by faith. Rather, we're referring to salvation qua justification.
That should frame the discussion.
When referring to the doctrine "justification by faith"...Protestants are referring to:
1. The underwriting merits of the root of justification. In our theology, the merit is that of Christ alone (that is to say the sole and sufficient merits of Christ via the atonement and the application of the atonement via
2. The instrument of justification - faith, not works qua works and/or faith and works in tandem. For example, I've interacted with some Catholics, usually former Protestants, who have said to me: Christ's atonement covers our sins in the past up to conversion but then we work in tandem and build on those for those after. That's probably the worst of the views I've heard, but it's an obvious, easy example to compare. Roman Catholic theology is more complex on that, sometimes depending on the source material as well the person articulating it (it can be mighty hard to find the Magisterium, but I digress), but that's the general idea.
In Reformed theology (whether Presby or Baptist versions), the Holy Spirit by means of the Gospel, not baptism, regenerates, the result is faith in Christ, this becomes the instrument via which God declares a person "justified." This is because Christ actually redeemed that person. The Holy Spirit, when His timing is ready, does this, and God's providence oversees it to ensure it occurs. Sanctification will result, and that person will persevere from the end. He may stumble,even gravely and struggle, but he will not apostatize, and this is due to the preservation of the Holy Spirit. Put another way, there's a limit to what he can do. Pilgrim's Progress, by the way, is an excellent allegory of that whole process, if you've not read it. It was written by a Baptist.
Put another way, Protestant doctrine stands in contrast to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merit which is composed of the merits of Christ, the saints/church, and your own congruent merit (stuff you do,like, for example, the sacraments). To some extent, unlike your own group's ideas about baptismal regeneration as the instrument of application (as opposed to faith alone), this is bound up with their idea that grace is a substance that is conveyed by water (baptism) and the elements of the Eucharist (to take two concrete examples). The treasury of merit also underwrites several other Roman Catholic doctrines including the Marian dogmas and prayers to the saints.
In CoC theology, to take an example more familiar to you, the instruments (plural) would be baptism and faith. The classic reply to from my side is the same as the question of Scripture: was Abraham justified by circumcision? No, he was justified by faith (Romans). One of the cardinal reasons we disaffirm baptismal justification is that if true it would be functionally the same as circumcisional justification, the doctrine that Galatians explicitly denies. Some Protestants, namely Lutherans, affirm a form of baptismal regeneration, but that is indexed to faith in a way unlike your own. Since I'm not Lutheran, I won't go any further. For the record, I disagree with Presbyterians over their views on infant baptism - I just worship with them because they are closer and there are are only 2 Reformed Baptist churches near me, and one of those is 20 miles away. The PCA also doesn't require you to hold to their ideas on baptism to partake of the Lord's Supper or even be a member of their churches. Some Reformed Baptists are kinda funny about stuff like that.
Sorry that rabbit trail, anyhoo
The position that links justification to works (baptism or others at all) turns on two exegetical fallacies when reading James.
These are, as I've pointed out, and you were I hope just glossing over before when this has been pointed out:
SEMANTIC INCEST
This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide (Ijustfication by faith alone).
Or Paul’s use of “sanctification” is employed to interpret the sense of the word in Heb 10:29—and thereby disprove perseverance or special redemption.
But this is a fallacious procedure unless the disputant can show, independent of the comparison, that both writers are using the same word the same way.
SEMANTIC INFLATION
The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word.
For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.
In context, James is simply talking about the difference between an antinomian faith that says one thing and does another, (he opens the discussion, remember, with a talk on favoritism in the church) for example, a faith says "Love your neighbor as yourself" but does not, in fact, practice it. The comparison is between a deedless faith and a living fruitful faith, not about the grounds or instrument of justification in the confessional sense itself. That discussion is in Romans.
So, independent of the comparison, Paul and James are talking about two different things when they use the term "justify". James' discussion in general in James 2 is more like the position that Paul is articulating in Romans 6 and 7 than the framing he sets up in Romans 4 and 5. James also isn't using the term "justify" in the sense Paul is using it. Both exegetical fallacies are avoided. Justification by works, invoking James, would directly involve one or both of the exegetical fallacies above.
Last edited:
Knight Templar
Commodore
My view, then is I suppose by way of explanation is that we are saved by faith. We do not earn salvation by any shape or form. It is God's grace that saves us.
But in order to obtain the grace of God, there are steps you have to take.
Like winning the lottery that has handed out free tickets. You haven't done a thing to "earn" what you win, but you are still required to take some proactive steps to claim your prize.
Someone gives you a lottery ticket that wins 10 million dollars, you go down to the lottery commission and present your ticket. You have not earned it but you still have to take action to claim it.
And that a person is saved by faith.
But a "faith that saves" will ALWAYS cause a change in a persons actions that manifests itself in works. Aside from those rare occasions when someone experiences truly "death bed salvation" and the only thing that changes is what is in hteir heart.
I knew of a man who was on his death bed and decided he needed Gods grace and forgiveness. His grandsons literally carried him to the baptistry in a wheelchair. Now of course his faith did not result much in the way of obvious works aside from the change in is heart and the obvious good effect of being a good example to his family.
But in order to obtain the grace of God, there are steps you have to take.
Like winning the lottery that has handed out free tickets. You haven't done a thing to "earn" what you win, but you are still required to take some proactive steps to claim your prize.
Someone gives you a lottery ticket that wins 10 million dollars, you go down to the lottery commission and present your ticket. You have not earned it but you still have to take action to claim it.
And that a person is saved by faith.
But a "faith that saves" will ALWAYS cause a change in a persons actions that manifests itself in works. Aside from those rare occasions when someone experiences truly "death bed salvation" and the only thing that changes is what is in hteir heart.
I knew of a man who was on his death bed and decided he needed Gods grace and forgiveness. His grandsons literally carried him to the baptistry in a wheelchair. Now of course his faith did not result much in the way of obvious works aside from the change in is heart and the obvious good effect of being a good example to his family.
Okay, do you affirm a form of justification by baptism ; baptismal regeneration found in classical CoC theology (eg.that believer's baptism is necessary/essential and dependent on believer's baptism)? The CoC is notorious for that, particularly the ICoC churches and the churches in your neck of the woods.
A more detailed read on my views on justification for you would be The God Who Justifies by James White. It has an entire chapter on James 2 that is much more detailed.
For a larger overview of Reformed Theology with a more Presby slant, however, would be Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology by RC Sproul (although for some reason I think the title has been changed) to What Is Reformed Theology?
For a larger overview of Reformed Theology with a more Presby slant, however, would be Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology by RC Sproul (although for some reason I think the title has been changed) to What Is Reformed Theology?
Knight Templar
Commodore
I do believe that the physical act of baptism is necessary for a believer to obtain salvation through the grace of God.
Is that the answer you were looking for?
The good news is that civilized faiths like Christianity accept all good, moral, devout people. Christianity accepts that all races and ethnicities can obtain the grace of God.
Judaism? Not so much. Judaism accepts that a single tribe, on account of birth alone, is privileged over all of mankind. All of mankind known as the nations or the goyim.
There are other tribal, racial religions. None are remotely as influential. I don't single out Judaism. All tribal religions, including Judaism, are vulgar, primitive, and racist mythologies. That deserve to be condemned, even by atheists, as below universalist faiths.
Mind if I ask you something, Talosian?
What are the grudge against and revulsion over Judaism about? The last post you made about "the Jewish owned and operated press" really rubbed a lot of us the wrong way. It came across as pretty obvious bigotry.
What on earth is up?
What are the grudge against and revulsion over Judaism about? The last post you made about "the Jewish owned and operated press" really rubbed a lot of us the wrong way. It came across as pretty obvious bigotry.
What on earth is up?
A
Amaris
Guest
You realize that the guy who founded Christianity, Jesus, was Jewish, right?
You made the baby Chakotay cry.
I guess Talosian isn't coming back to explain the roots and cause of his pretty obvious anti-Semitism. Oh well.
In a different vein, anybody here remember this incident that happened a couple of years back?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnm0k7Mpghc&feature=related[/yt]
Hard to believe this is the 21st century. At least in some corners of this country and this world.
In a different vein, anybody here remember this incident that happened a couple of years back?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnm0k7Mpghc&feature=related[/yt]
Hard to believe this is the 21st century. At least in some corners of this country and this world.
Yeah, I was pretty sure of that. That's where we part ways then. That is no different than justification by circumcision or salvation by way of a sacramental prayer, both of which Galatians rules out. That's salvation by grace through faith and works. It turns baptism into an instrumental cause, and therefore a meritorious act.