Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by jmdewey60


I think the difference between my faith and your faith is that you think Justification is the endgame, where I see it as the starting gun. I would say to someone, "You're saved? Great. So what are you doing with it?". I don't think the goal of our lives is to just make it out of Hell when we die, but to glorify Jesus and build his kingdom by the leading and power of the Holy Spirit while we are alive. My works are the product of my faith, not the foundation of it.

And I still don't know why you say "free grace", that's an oxymoron.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

No, it isn't -- the trinity is clearly present throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

If that is the case, the Jews would have been trinitarian.

Why would they? It wasn't readily apparent until Christ came, and they'd have to accept him to be trinitarians, and they're obviously not going to do that.

As I said before, your idea of Modalism is incorrect.

Well then you must be the world's worst teacher, because my "idea of modalism" is what you've been going on about -- either God is a schizophrenic, arguing with himself and changing his theatrical masks at a whim, or there are at least two separate persons in the Godhead. You seem to be offering a third alternative, that God has two simultaneous instantiations, but that's just another form of trinitarianism.

Accepting the Nicene Creed does not make one a Christian.

Yes, it does, because that is the definition of what a Christian believes. There is no indication that the Apostles or others who were Christians before the Creed was formulated would have disagreed with its basic tenets.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"You're saved? Great. So what are you doing with it?".

The difference is that I base my theology on the Bible, while you base yours on a modern pop-culture slogan-based religion version of Christianity.

The definition of a word comes from its usage, so what you find today is two different definitions for the word "saved", where according to the usage that you cite in the Free Grace party culture, saved means something completely different than what it means in the Bible.
The point being, all of your arguments only work within the bubble of a delusional world that will do you no good whatsoever when you face judgment at the end of your life.

And I still don't know why you say "free grace", that's an oxymoron.

It's an actual term that you can look up in Wikipedia.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well you can trust whatever you want, I don't put my trust in my works to save me. My Redeemer is Jesus, not things I do. I won't stand before God someday and rattle off a list of good deeds I did.

And I think free and grace had clear definitions before Wiki was invented. Mercy is not getting what one deserves, and grace is getting what someone ill-deserves. If grace were merit based it would cease to be grace at that monument. Any grace we receive is a gift that we don't deserve.

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by truejew

 

And it isn't your place to tell us what God (non gender)
revealed to others on a personal level

Cody

It is my place to teach what Scripture teaches.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well you can trust whatever you want, I don't put my trust in my works to save me.

You put your trust in manufactured salvation theories which hold no weight with God.

My Redeemer is Jesus, not things I do. I won't stand before God someday and rattle off a list of good deeds I did.

Jesus redeemed the world by offering a new way to gain righteousness. Jesus did not redeem people from the necessity for righteousness, such a thing is never taught in the Bible.
You will be judged by your character which can only be developed through good works.

reply to post by jmdewey60


None of that is the gospel. The gospel of grace is stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In fact, Paul also makes the statement that if anyone else is pushing another gospel that they should be considered acursed. I would reference Ephesians 2:8-9 at this point but I think you reject that epistle.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I would reference Ephesians 2:8-9 at this point but I think you reject that epistle.

Well, just apply it to your own self, then.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I would reference Ephesians 2:8-9 at this point but I think you reject that epistle.

Well, just apply it to your own self, then.

I do. Along with Romans 10:9-10, and the trifecta of Romans 10:13/Acts 2:21/Joel 2:32.

I neither accept or teach any other gospel than Paul laid out in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Well you can trust whatever you want, I don't put my trust in my works to save me. My Redeemer is Jesus, not things I do. I won't stand before God someday and rattle off a list of good deeds I did.

And I think free and grace had clear definitions before Wiki was invented. Mercy is not getting what one deserves, and grace is getting what someone ill-deserves. If grace were merit based it would cease to be grace at that monument. Any grace we receive is a gift that we don't deserve.

Indeed. Grace was given on Christ's merit, not our own.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I neither accept or teach any other gospel than Paul laid out in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

He doesn't go into a detailed version of his gospel in chapter 15.
He repeats the part that is pertaining to the question at hand, which is that there is a future resurrection to look forward to, as evidenced by Jesus having been resurrected, which is integral to his gospel.
Paul was not presenting his gospel there in opposition to any competing gospel.
Verse 2 goes as such:

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

where "saved" is not talking about a past event, where someone was saved, but is in the present tense, meaning how those listening are in the church, in the first place, to be hearing this letter being read to the congregation.

I think what you like to leave out is the big if in there which is if they follow all his instructions on righteousness that he gave them when they were first converted, and what is in the content of this letter.
The "saved" part is not part of his gospel itself, and I think that is what you are doing, pretending that you can move that part over into the other part, where the "gospel" ends up being that you are saved, while plugging in your own definition for what saved means, which is a nonrevocable golden ticket to heaven.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Indeed. Grace was given on Christ's merit, not our own.

Which is what I said. That is what makes it grace, that we don't deserve it.

The problem is in people taking all these words from the New Testament and making up their own definitions for them, in order to make it fit a scheme cooked up where they can be sinful and still go to heaven.

"By grace" is how we eventually do end up in heaven rather than in hell, which is the ability for a holy thing, the spirit of God, to be able to enter into a sinful thing, us (or, you, whoever is reading this), because of Christ who was deserving of the gift of the spirit of God, by virtue of his sinlessness.
Being given this spirit, we come into conformity with the righteousness of God, this process being called in the Bible, justification. This happens through the guidance of what Paul called Faith, which in the new system of righteousness takes the place of what in the Old Testament system was the agency for bringing people to a state of righteousness, the Law.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I don't see how that is in any conflict with what Jesus said to Nicodemus when comparing His crucifixion to the brass snake Moses put on the pole in the wilderness, or Him saying that those who believed already possess eternal life. John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10 say the same thing, that salvation/justification is based on faith/trust.

Justification merely declares a person "not guilty", sanctification leads to holiness and righteousness. That's the entire point, the Holy Spirit's ministry convicts of sin and leads a man to repent of those things and seek forgiveness and in turn makes a believer desire to not partake of those things anymore.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Justification merely declares a person "not guilty", sanctification leads to holiness and righteousness.

These statements cannot be backed up by the Bible because they are based on theories.

Need I endlessly repeat myself?

If you want to stop me from saying this, produce some biblical proof.

You are going to cult meetings teaching theory that conveniently have biblical sounding terms but they are given new definitions to where they say something that the Bible doesn't.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, since you referred to Wiki earlier as a credible source:

Justification, in Christian theology, is God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while at the same time declaring a sinner righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice. In Protestantism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner's account through faith alone, without works.

"Justification" (Theology) - Wiki

Sanctification is the act or process of acquiring sanctity, of being made or becoming holy[1]. "Sanctity" is an ancient concept widespread among religions, a property of a thing or person sacred or set apart within the religion, from temple vessels to days of the week, to a human believer who achieves this state. To sanctify is literally "to set apart for special use or purpose", figuratively "to make holy or sacred", and etymologically from the Latin verb sanctificare which in turn is from sanctus "holy" and facere "to make".

"Sanctification" - Wiki


And one more just for kicks, "Justification" as defined in the "Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Dictionary", p. 635:

"The divine act by which God declares a penitent sinner righteous, or regards him as righteous. Justification is the opposite of condemnation (Rom. 5:16). Neither term specifies character, but only standing before God. Justification is not a transformation of inherent character; it does not impart righteousness any more than condemnation imparts sinfulness. . . . When God imputes righteousness to a repentant sinner He figuratively places the atonement provided by Christ and the righteousness of Christ to his credit on the books of heaven, and the sinner stands before God as if he had never sinned''

I don't see any conflict with what I said, even your own denomination's official dictionary says the same thing.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
You seem to be reinforcing one of my points, that you are basing your definitions on theories.

Well, since you referred to Wiki earlier as a credible source:

It's an easy way to look up certain objective facts that you can verify through sources, if they list any for that particular thing.

Justification, in Christian theology . . .

Right, certain theological theories use the word in that way, which I have already conceded as a fact.

"Sanctity" is an ancient concept widespread among religions . . .

You can see where the original idea comes from, various religions. You can't trust them, so you need to go to the Christian Bible to see how the word is used there.

And one more just for kicks, "Justification" as defined in the "Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Dictionary", p. 635:
. . .
I don't see any conflict with what I said, even your own denomination's official dictionary says the same thing.

Whoever wrote that article for the dictionary was probably quoting some standard Reformed theology.
Again, I have already conceded that such a thing exists. But what is it based on?
There is no such thing as an official Adventist dictionary. The Adventist Church owns book publishing companies to put out their own books, but they have no authority in themselves and are never used in church for things like settling theological disputes.
There may be such a thing in something like a Catholic monastic order but otherwise it is just a fantasy in the modern Christian world where heretics are not burnt at the stake in the public square.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, please provide the Concordance or dictionary you use for the terms "Justification" and "Sanctification". I've shown that my comments are backed by a common and theological understanding of the terms.

Perhaps you shouldn't call someone a cult member for saying the same things your own denomination claims as fundamental beliefs. And another thing, I've been tossing around in my head that comment you made about Paul's statement of the gospel in 1 Corinthians ch. 15 as simplified, and my question is who ever said that the gospel needed to be complex or convoluted? The gospel is a simple thing, that all me can understand and grasp. It shouldn't take a theologian to understand it. Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later.

That's it, the gospel of grace.

Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later.

That's it, the gospel of grace.

Christianity is a ridiculously simple, though hard to embrace, theology.

Accept Jesus, do your best to emulate him, and rely on the mercy of God. Period.

All these doctrinal arguments, and people who over think every aspect of faith, meh.

Originally posted by adjensen

Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later.

That's it, the gospel of grace.

Christianity is a ridiculously simple, though hard to embrace, theology.

Accept Jesus, do your best to emulate him, and rely on the mercy of God. Period.

All these doctrinal arguments, and people who over think every aspect of faith, meh.

I would say Justification is simple, "the gospel", but would argue Sanctification is the hardest thing a person could do. We literally die to self day by day. Picking up our crosses and crucifying self.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's it, the gospel of grace.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before there existed things like the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John.
So there wasn't at the time an official term, the gospel, and it was just the word, message, so Paul was at that time only saying that his message, what he liked to emphasize specifically about Jesus, was about his being resurrected, before those books existed that said the same thing in their stories of the life of jesus.