# I registered to the Catholic Answers forum...



## Confessor

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.


----------



## charliejunfan

sweet


----------



## Jake

I've considered joining before, as they do allow Protestants there. However, I have felt like I'll have trouble keeping a Christlike attitude if I am there to debate, without humility. However, I may be more mature now and be able to.


----------



## Confessor

Jake said:


> I've considered joining before, as they do allow Protestants there. However, I have felt like I'll have trouble keeping a Christlike attitude if I am there to debate, without humility. However, I may be more mature now and be able to.



Yeah, that is one thing I am keeping a huge check on. If I find myself being angry in my replies, then I am simply not going to reply, because my emotions will likely show through my posts.

Or at least, that's my rule for now. By God's grace I'll actually follow it.


----------



## AThornquist

Good on you, Ben. Hopefully the dialogue will be beneficial to the saints. The only time I registered to a forum to talk to Catholics was last year in late October to wish the Catholics Happy Reformation Day and to thank God that He was faithful to bring the truth of Rome's abominations to light.  Maybe that wasn't so edifying.


----------



## matt01

Why?


----------



## Confessor

sans nom said:


> Why?



Good question. 

To let them know what Reformed theology is. Most of them there, from what I have seen, think that the "sinner's prayer" is a hallmark of Protestant orthodoxy.


----------



## SolaGratia

Confessor said:


> They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism.



Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Thanks for being a very needed advocate for the Reformed Faith.


----------



## Confessor

SolaGratia said:


> Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?



Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough.


----------



## SolaGratia

Agreed.

To the Papist, the World, etc. This is who we are, This is what we believed according to the Scriptures as found in our Reformed Confessions, such as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.


----------



## ExGentibus

One of the first things you will probably have to deal with is their understanding of Sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," and the whole "the RCC gave you your Bible" argument on the canon.


----------



## Confessor

ExGentibus said:


> One of the first things you will probably have to deal with is their understanding of Sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," and the whole "the RCC gave you your Bible" argument on the canon.



Yes, I have seen that already. But thus far I have not been able to counter it. I plan on making a thread sometime that differentiates the two. It won't be a full-fledged defense of _sola Scriptura_, but it will make note of the distinction.


----------



## Josiah

Confessor said:


> sans nom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> To let them know what Reformed theology is. Most of them there, from what I have seen, think that the "sinner's prayer" is a hallmark Protestant orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

 
Have you read _Deconstructing Evangelicalism_ by D.G. Hart? He points out in the book, need to Identify ourselves as Confessional Protestants as opposed to Evangelicals (echoing the sentiments of CVT). He also points out in the book that before the rise of the Neo-Evengelical movement in the 40's , American Protestants were identified by their Denominational affiliation. Since the 40's however, we have all been lumped together in one unhelpful mass by Christians and unbelievers alike (called Evangelicalism) and he advocates that we shouldnt allow ourselves as (Confessional Protestants) to be lumped into it.


----------



## Confessor

Josiah,

No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.


----------



## historyb

Confessor said:


> I thought I'd tell ya guys.
> 
> "Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."
> 
> The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.
> 
> But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.


I am on their too, every once in a while I'll go back and get into a thread. Same user name, well I use that user name all over


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Have you heard the one about _Sola Scriptura_ being a self-refuting principle yet?

Or how about the Epistle of James debunking _Sola Fide_?


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Thomist said:


> Have you heard the one about _Sola Scriptura_ being a self-refuting principle yet?
> 
> Or how about the Epistle of James debunking _Sola Fide_?



Yes to both.  I have basically refuted the latter thus far.

Right now I'm having to defend the charge that the Bible can't be infallible because an "infallible text" is a category mistake.


----------



## dudley

To Ben, Confessor

From: Dudley

Ben, you said "Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough." 

Please remember that I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. They the Roman Catholics do an excellent job of publicizing Protestant conversions to Roman Catholicism which in reality are very few. However we Protestants do not do the same job publicizing ex Roman Catholics like myself who have become true Protestants with Reformation conviction.There are actually 15 million ex Roman Catholics like myself in the last 2 decades who have left Roman Catholicism and become Protestants. Type in Roman catholic conversion to Protestant on Google and the only stories that come up are Protestant conversion to Roman catholic. however type in Dudley Davis reformed Presbyterian Protestant or Presbyterian Protestant and you will see my testimony and stories all over the Internet. It is why I am so outspoken now a s a Reformed Protestant and Presbyterian. Also please remember that Roman Catholics wrongly use the term catholic and it is a mistake, they a re Roman Catholics. I stress I left Roman Catholicism and renounced the Roman pope and the church of Rome as did Calvin and all the reformers. if you have any questions please feel free to write me immediately for any assistance and and i will try to write you back for any help I might be able to offer.

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## Philip

Go for it, Ben! Show'em who's _really_ catholic!


----------



## A.J.

SolaGratia said:


> Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?
> 
> Thanks for being a very needed advocate for the Reformed Faith.



Another reason I can think of would probably be the small number of Reformed believers and churches in predominantly Roman Catholic areas. In my country where there is a Roman Catholic majority, the word "Protestant" for instance is in many cases identified not with the Reformed but with mainline liberal groups. 

In recent years, some Roman Catholic scholars here have published tracts and books attempting to discredit the Protestant Reformation. Their writings, however, does show that it is modern evangelicalism that they are actually attacking, not historic and confessional Protestantism. 

A big problem with our situation here is that the bigger Reformed denominations are Reformed in name only. They have largely become broadly evangelical and/or liberal in many of their positions. Good Reformed churches are very few.


----------



## dr_parsley

Confessor said:


> Josiah,
> 
> No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.



With respect, disgust seems an odd response to ignorance, to say the least. How does that work?


----------



## Confessor

dudley said:


> however type in Dudley Davis reformed Presbyterian Protestant or Presbyterian Protestant and you will see my testimony and stories all over the Internet.



I was wondering why you often introduced yourself in that way.  It makes sense now.



dudley said:


> if you have any questions please feel free to write me immediately for any assistance and and i will try to write you back for any help I might be able to offer.



Thank you! I probably will.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:18:00 EST-----



dr_parsley said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josiah,
> 
> No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, disgust seems an odd response to ignorance, to say the least. How does that work?
Click to expand...


There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles.

Or, if nothing else, people ought to know that there _are_ disagreements in Christianity. From what I have seen most people favor a "don't label me", non-divisive disposition because they don't even know what they would disagree with. Not many professing Christians even know what Calvinism is.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:32:27 EST-----

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an _effect_ of saving faith?


----------



## Confessor

Confessor said:


> Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an _effect_ of saving faith?



...


----------



## P.F.

"There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles."

Juxtaposed so closely with

"Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith? "

seems a bit striking.

I don't mean to offend, and yet I feel compelled to suggest that you take a little bit of a break from engaging in contra-Romanist apologetics and read up on the historical defenses of the faith against the errors of Rome.

If you should decide to ignore my suggestion, the most obvious place to look for the verses you need is James' remarks about the relation of faith and works. But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

PCFLANAGAN said:


> But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.



Or at least have read the pre-Trent _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ by Ludwig Ott.

AMR


----------



## SoliDeoGloria

Confessor said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough.
Click to expand...


This is true, they don't know anything about reformed theology most of the time. They clump us together as a sinners prayer sort of people and don't know what makes Presbyterians different from Baptists or Pentecostals.

I just encourage you to speak in love, grace, and humility. And like Matthew says, if they hit you on the cheek, present the other. 
I hope you enjoy yourself though, I gave up debating Catholics. It almost always resorts to *TRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITION* and so forth.

Plus, I have found this humorous although considering the massive intellect of this forum you already know this argument.

Me: "What's wrong with Sola Scriptura?
Catholic: "Fallible man, interpreting infallible Scripture."
Me: "Why is the pope infallible?"
Catholic "*points towards that portion of Scripture*"
Me: "So, you're accusing me of incorrect interpretation when your entire system is built on interpretation?"
Catholic: "No."
Me: "wat."







-----Added 7/9/2009 at 05:44:51 EST-----



Confessor said:


> Im having to defend the charge that the Bible can't be infallible because an "infallible text" is a category mistake.



I actually left my previous forum over that argument. I was so irritated, tired, annoyed, and just _angry_ over such a stupid and redundant argument I left. And I was ironically, debating it with a Catholic.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 05:48:55 EST-----



Confessor said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an _effect_ of saving faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


_Perhaps_ Ezekiel 36:26-27, if you see it in that sense.
James 2 (which ultimately speaks about works coming about as a product of faith, not saving us)
You could also argue the fruits of the spirit, when acted out, are byproducts of saving faith.


----------



## Confessor

PCFLANAGAN said:


> "There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles."
> 
> Juxtaposed so closely with
> 
> "Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith? "
> 
> seems a bit striking.
> 
> I don't mean to offend, and yet I feel compelled to suggest that you take a little bit of a break from engaging in contra-Romanist apologetics and read up on the historical defenses of the faith against the errors of Rome.
> 
> If you should decide to ignore my suggestion, the most obvious place to look for the verses you need is James' remarks about the relation of faith and works. But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.



Thank you for your concern, but I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace. I was simply asking for rather explicit verses that speak of works as explicitly stemming from saving faith. I have already gone in-depth in James, if you see the link I provided earlier in this thread.


----------



## P.F.

"Thank you for your concern, but I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace."

My wish is not for you to avoid battle but to enter it well armed. At least check out Bullinger's Decades, Volume 1, 1st Decade, Semon VI, on Justification by Faith ( The decades of Henry Bullinger ) and from the Sermons/Homilies annexed to the 39th Articles, Book 1, Homilies 4 and 5 (Of the true and lively Faith and Of Good Works) ascribed, I believe, to Cranmer ( Sermons or homilies appointed to be read in churches in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, to which are annexed The Thirty-nine articles of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical ).

Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!



> You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.



I agree that you need to know what the scriptures are, but it seems to me a bit burdensome to learn all of those responses. What I did [and it has worked well for me] is learn how to do exegesis, and learn other languages than Greek and Hebrew. When you start doing that, you begin to see how meaning in language works. This will enable you to see the weaknesses in Roman Catholic interpretations.

The reason I say that is because, when I have done this in my dialogues with Roman Catholics, I have unfailingly seen how they insert things into the text out of the blue. I'll never forget the first time I heard a Roman Catholic say that the phrase "God my savior" in Luke 1:47 meant that God saved Mary from falling into the pit of original sin. Of course, no first century Jew would have ever viewed God as savior in that way, and worse, the Mary's Magnificat very clearly has parallels to Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2. In other words, the language of the Magnificat already had a long history in Jewish literature by the time Mary said it [in fact, if I recall correctly, there is a Psalm that picks up on this langauge as well]. However, the idea that Hannah was speaking of being saved in the sense of not falling into a pit of original sin is absolutely absurd.

I don't know what it is. I have come to the conclusion that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis, because they already have their exegetical conclusions handed to them by the Papal decrees and ecumenical councils. Yes, it is important to be able to interact with historical arguments, but you can't take them for granted! It almost seems like, with these guys, if you lived before 500 A.D., you were an infallible exegete.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## ZackF

Confessor said:


> I thought I'd tell ya guys.
> 
> "Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."
> 
> The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.
> 
> But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.



Good luck.


----------



## Jeff Allen

Ben

You are too young to be so argumentative, or maybe it is because you are so young.

Join a bowling league or something similar and get to know some people in a non threatining environment. Accept them just as people and then show Christ instead of arguing Christ.

Just a thought from an much older fellow.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Confessor,



> Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?



Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good passage:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, _*created in Christ Jesus for good works*_, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them [NASB].

Notice how we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, not that we do good works in order to be created in Christ Jesus. Also, verses 8-9 are good bring up to a Roman Catholic concerning Justification by Faith Alone.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Confessor

Hebrew Student said:


> Confessor,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good passage:
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, _*created in Christ Jesus for good works*_, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them [NASB].
> 
> Notice how we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, not that we do good works in order to be created in Christ Jesus. Also, verses 8-9 are good bring up to a Roman Catholic concerning Justification by Faith Alone.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...


I remember looking at Eph. 2:8-10 and thinking that a Catholic would probably reply that it says we are created to do good works in the sense that that is our purpose, but for whatever reason I totally ignored the part "which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."


----------



## dudley

I agree with Adam and use the following also when explaining my conversion to Protestantism, justification by faith alone and my renunciation of Roman catholicism.

In grace,
Dudley

or Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good passage:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them [NASB].

Notice how we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, not that we do good works in order to be created in Christ Jesus. Also, verses 8-9 are good bring up to a Roman Catholic concerning Justification by Faith Alone.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

PCFLANAGAN said:


> Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.


Well, like I said, _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ by Ludwig Ott is a must read. It was my Jesuit seminary text back in the late seventies.

Also, please review the posting here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1721709&postcount=1

As they represent what I think to be the standard pro-Catholic arguments by someone who I have interacted with at length. Note: the TOL site is a concentrated nest of open theists mostly following the lead of one Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church.

If I have violated a rule by posting a link to another discussion site, rebuke me and delete this portion of my post.

AMR


----------



## TeachingTulip

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ by Ludwig Ott is a must read. It was my Jesuit seminary text back in the late seventies.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Do you, or have you, ever participated on this Catholic forum, AMR?

Seems you would be a most informed witness there.


----------



## DTK

> I don't know what it is. I have come to the conclusion that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis, because they already have their exegetical conclusions handed to them by the Papal decrees and ecumenical councils. Yes, it is important to be able to interact with historical arguments, but you can't take them for granted! It almost seems like, with these guys, if you lived before 500 A.D., you were an infallible exegete.


I do think you are right in your conclusion "that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis," but I think the reason needs a bit of fine tuning. As much as Romanists love to claim that "an infallible Bible requires an infallible interpreter," the reality is that there are only a handful of biblical texts that have been officially defined by the Roman communion as to what the text itself means. Those few officially defined texts, then, are "exegetical conclusions." 

But by and large it is official church teaching that precludes members of the Roman communion from doing exegesis with any kind of sound hermeneutical approach, i.e., church teaching not drawn from the text of Scripture, but church teaching that renders exegesis unnecessary, and for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. To put it bluntly, most hardened Romanists don't sweat that "Bible stuff."

I think some of the following quotes demonstrate what I'm saying...

*Catholic Encyclopedia:* (a) Defined Texts.—The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. *The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. *The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. And John, xxi, 15 sqq. *Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors. *The Council of Niceaea, e.g., showed how those passages ought to be interpreted on which the Arians relied in their contention that the Word was a creature; the Fifth (Ecumenical Council (II Constantinople) teaches the right meaning of many prophecies by condemning the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. _Catholic Encyclopedia_, Vol. V, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 699, 2nd column.

*Catholic Encyclopedia:* It is well further to explain: (a) that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error; (b) that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God’s agents in defining infallibly; (c) and finally that *the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.* _Catholic Encyclopedia_, Vol. VII, Infallibility (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 790, 2nd column.

*Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid:* . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. *The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. *Patrick Madrid, _Pope Fiction_ (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

*Ludwig Ott,* while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: *“The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” *Ludwig Ott, _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

*Johann Adam Möhler* states: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that *even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined.* Johann Adam Möhler, _Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings_, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.

*Raymond E. Brown:* Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that *their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. *Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

*Raymond E. Brown:* To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible. Raymond E. Brown, *The Critical Meaning of the Bible* (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40. 

*Maurice Bévenot, S.J.: But very few indeed are the Scripture texts of which the Church authorities have defined the meaning, and even there, their intervention has generally been to say what Scripture does not mean, otherwise leaving open what it does. *See his chapter “Scripture and Tradition in Catholic Theology” in F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds., _Holy Book and Holy Tradition_ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 181.
*
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.:* When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation. But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. *Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.”* (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, _Scripture, The Soul of Theology_ (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.

Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, *Cardinal Congar* wrote: “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does somethimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. *One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgment made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.*” Yves M.-J. Congar, _Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay_ (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

And *Cardinal Congar* even goes on to insist “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, _Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay_ (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399.

Saving the best for last, here is _sola Ecclesia_ with a vengeance...

*Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892):* It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. *But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? *No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, ‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.’ No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of the Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.
It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved. But in the second chapter we have seen that the Church contains the fountain of faith in itself, and is not only the channel divinely created and sustained, but the very presence of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh and ever flowing in all ages of the world. *I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable.* Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare his own thoughts. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.’ *The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.* Henry Edward Manning, _The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation_ (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

DTK


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

TeachingTulip said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ by Ludwig Ott is a must read. It was my Jesuit seminary text back in the late seventies.
> 
> AMR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you, or have you, ever participated on this Catholic forum, AMR?
> 
> Seems you would be a most informed witness there.
Click to expand...

No, I have not. I am over subscribed in the forums I already participate in to date. It has also been my practice to cast few pearls to those that are decidedly entrenched in their views.

AMR


----------



## Confessor

That quote from Manning would undercut all the Romanists' appeals to the Church Fathers, wouldn't it?


----------



## louis_jp

Based on DTK's quotes, it seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to argue with Catholics on any point of faith or doctrine. The bible simply means what the Catholic Church says it means; and this foundational principle of the Church's authority is itself not subject to proof or testing of any kind -- not historical, textual, or otherwise. They can give you reasons for Papal infallibility, but those reasons need not be accurate, and yet the conclusion is still true. 

In other words, Catholic authority seems to be taken as a matter of faith, as Cardinal Archbishop Manning says: "It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved.... The Church contains the fountain of faith in itself." There can be no appeal to any authority outside the Church itself, not even to God's own Word, as the Word is bound up with the Church.

If that's the case, then one can argue scripture, history, logic, exegesis, etc., all day long and not get anywhere. Either you accept the Church's authority as a presupposition or you don't.

Is this correct? If so, how does one get around this?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ... _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ by Ludwig Ott is a must read. It was my Jesuit seminary text back in the late seventies.



Must have been a fairly conservative Jesuit seminary. Ott's book is hardcore Tridentine Romanism (a far cry from the theology of most American Jesuits since Vatican II).


----------



## DTK

louis_jp said:


> Cardinal Archbishop Manning says: "It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved.... The Church contains the fountain of faith in itself." There can be no appeal to any authority outside the Church itself, not even to God's own Word, as the Word is bound up with the Church.
> 
> If that's the case, then one can argue scripture, history, logic, exegesis, etc., all day long and not get anywhere. Either you accept the Church's authority as a presupposition or you don't.
> 
> Is this correct? If so, how does one get around this?


Not every Romanist would agree with Manning, and he didn't speak for the Roman communion as a whole.

Nonetheless, every committed Romanist begins with the presupposition that Rome is the one, true infallible church, and it is that presupposition which must be exposed as error.

DTK


----------



## Reformed Thomist

DTK said:


> Nonetheless, every committed Romanist begins with the presupposition that Rome is the one, true infallible church, and it is that presupposition which must be exposed as error.



Indeed. There is an old RC saying -- I can't remember which 'saint' said it -- that goes something like "I would believe that the blue sky above is red, and that 1+3=7, if the Magisterium of the Church so taught." 

This is what we are dealing with.


----------



## DTK

Reformed Thomist said:


> Indeed. There is an old RC saying -- I can't remember which 'saint' said it -- that goes something like "I would believe that the blue sky above is red, and that 1+3=7, if the Magisterium of the Church so taught."



I suppose a Jesuit said it best...

*Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, Rule 13:* That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtingly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same; . . .” Henry Bettenson, ed., _Documents of the Christian Church_, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 260.

That is the presupposition of Romanism.

DTK


----------



## Hebrew Student

DTK,

Yes, thank you for clarifying. I read through your quotations, and the attitude is exactly what you see lying behind the exegesis of the likes of Patrick Madrid, James Akin, Karl Keating, and the like. I have never seen a group that can read more foreign things into a text than the Roman Catholics.

In fact, I remember Karl Keating saying that the only way he knows that the scriptures are inerrant is because the church says so. So, for the Roman Catholic, even the inerrancy of scripture rests on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is why, while Justification is a vitally important issue, one almost wonders if the first issue one should bring up with a Roman Catholic is the issue of Sola Scriptura vs. Papal Infallability. Of course, this is the one issue I have seen Roman Catholics argue in an extremely unfair fashion. I had to study postmodernity in semantics when I took a class in hermeneutics, and it was amazing how the arguments that postmodernists use against protestants are the same arguments that Roman Catholics use against protestants. Of course, take those arguments out to their logical conclusion, and they destroy Roman Catholicism, because, in postmodernity, there is no meaning in anything, even the Roman Catholic Church.

The way they escape this is by a double standard. The only way we know God is in so far as he reveals himself to us. That is why postmodernism's arguments have bite, simply because it tries to start with man alone, and then get to meaning. Roman Catholics, however, want to allow God to reveal himself to us through the Roman Catholic Church, but will absolutely refuse to allow that same condescention for scripture. They will force the Protestant into a position of having to start with man and scripture [instead of God and scripture] in order to get to meaning in the text, and then, when meaning is destroyed, they will present and argument starting with God and the Roman Catholic Church.

I have found that, in order to show this to a Roman Catholic, you simply apply their arguments against their own position, and show that their arguments don't just destroy meaning in scripture, they destroy meaning altogether. Then, when they try to make an appeal to God's alleged relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, point out the double standard. Yes, the way out of postmodernity is God condescending to his people. However, if you are going to use that argument for the Roman Church, you have to allow it for scripture too, otherwise you are engaging in a double standard.

In fact, using this methodology, I remember getting one Roman Catholic to tell me that we cannot be absolutely certain of anything. He told me that we couldn't be certain about scripture or the Roman Church. All I can say is, at least he was honest about the consistency of his arguments. I only wish that, when this was pointed out to him, that he would have simply allowed for God to condescend to his people in his word, and leveled the playing field that way. Then we could have dealt with the scriptures such as Matthew 15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## dudley

Adam said :"Roman Catholics, however, want to allow God to reveal himself to us through the Roman Catholic Church, but will absolutely refuse to allow that same condescention for scripture." 

I would offer other roman catholics the following testimony in addition the scriptural basis to Justification by faith alone as an example of how roman catholicism holds the person in bondage to the church of rome and her pope.It is why I renounced both the pope and roman catholicism upon being received into the Presbyterian church and embracing the Reformed Protestant faith, the true ancient faith of the aposles and Jesus Christ.

I am today a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I have said in other posts I am also an ex roman catholic. Today July 10th is the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. How do you think he would have wanted it celebrated? I celebrate it by proclaiming my experience of having experienced *a true Protestant conversion *as did John Calvin. 

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls. Rome taught at the time of the Reformation that there was no salvation outside the Church of Rome. Unfortunately She is now reverting to that same false claim. The Reformers regarded the Church of Rome to have seceded from Christ and the Apostolic Church. The aims of the Reformers were to return to the pure Gospel and practices of the Early Church. I left Roman Catholicism for the same reason. As a Roman Catholic I was a slave to the Institutional Roman Church. Now as a Reformed Protestant I am a servant of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

As a Roman Catholic I had to go to Jesus through the priest and the church as a Presbyterian and a Protestant I go to my Lord and Savior directly. As a Protestant the church is there to assist me not to direct and control me. 

I Acknowledge Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

Why I became a Protestant and why I became a Presbyterian. After I left roman catholicism I was an Episcapalian for a while. It was the sacramental church without the pope.who I innitially renounced and why I at first became a Protestant. However I began doing an extensive study of the Protestant Reformation from the perspective of Protestant writers and Theologians. I centered a lot on the reformers Luther, Calvin and Knox. I studied Luther's Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone and I began concentrating on the Reformed Theology of Calvin and Knox. I then read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the short and long catechisms of the Presbyterian Church. I started to attend services a 3 different Presbyterian churches a few months later. 

I now believe in the Presbyterian reformed teaching of The Lord's Supper. That it was instituted by Jesus the same night he was betrayed, to be only a symbolic remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death and for our spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, and as a bond and pledge of our communion with him, and with each other. I submit and believe as a Protestant and a Presbyterian that there are only 2 sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper, not 7 as I was taught in the Roman Catholic Church. I use to believe as a Roman Catholic that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ at the mass. They call that Transubstantiation. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine, which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest. I now renounce that belief and I now believe it is repugnant not to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It destroys the true nature of the ordinance or sacrament of the Lords Supper. I now am able to see the notion and teaching of Transubstantiation, the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ is ludicrous and a denial of Christ dying for all our sins. Now that I have understood the Protestant doctrine of Justification I also can see the apostasy and of the Roman Catholic Eucharist and the Mass. Roman Catholicism says the Mass is a reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. The adoration of a "bread wafer” in a monstrance is in itself idolatry. I now believe as a Protestant that the Mass is the greatest possible blasphemy of the “once for all”; all sufficient, all atoning, all completed blood shedding of Christ on the Cross. The teaching of Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass I now renounce the practice of both, as did Calvin and many other reformers.

I studied the Protestant Reformation with fervor and I became convinced and a believer in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. When I accepted the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and realized that salvation is by grace alone could no longer say I was a Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian. I renounced also the ecclesiastical authorities of both churches. I renounced the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Christ’s head of his church on earth. I fully understood that only Christ heads his church. When I renounced the Ecclesiastical structure, I searched and found Calvin, Knox and the Presbyterian denomination. I knew I was a Protestant but not yet a Presbyterian. I wanted to find a Protestant denomination that I believed had the purest form of the Gospel.

It was in that search I became a Presbyterian in faith not only a Protestant.

As a roman catholic I needed to belong to the Roman Church to be saved. I had to do good works and work with much effort and much guilt to save myself. I know now as a Protestant that none of this could save my soul. Salvation was bestowed because of God’s mercy. Salvation by Faith alone...the Protestant doctrine of Justification. I now understand the scripture when it says
In Titus Ch. 2 v. 11, I read: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” 
These words make it very clear that Salvation is by Grace. It is God reaching down to the helpless sinner, revealing to him that He loves him so much that He sent His Son to the cross. There, He took the sinner’s place by becoming his substitute. He paid the penalty for sin that the sinner should have paid. 

The following also attests to the Protestant doctrine of Justification. It also attests to me why the Church of Rome is wrong in condemning the Protestant doctrine and distorting the truth. It is why I am now a Protestant and why I renounced the RC church like John Calvin and all the reformers. 

In Titus Ch. 3 v. 4 - 5, I read: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...”.

The words of Romans Ch. 3 v. 24, summed it all up. They read: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I could now see that God gave Salvation FREELY to sinful man. The sinner was not required to work for it.

I decided to become a Presbyterian because I asked myself "Either the Catholic Church is very right, OR if it’s not, it’s very wrong?" I knew it was wrong and a false teacher of the true Gospel of Christ and there can no in-between on this issue. I always knew that Transubstantiation denied the sovereignty of God. The reformed theology is the only Protestant theology that praises the sovereignty of God and the governmental structure is biblically sound. I believe the Presbyterian Fold is the pure and true Christian church. It’s why I want to profess my faith as a Presbyterian. I’m now a Protestant and a Presbyterian. Some Reformed Protestants and I believe some Presbyterians don't understand that we are both Protestant but also Presbyterian. That is very important for Presbyterians to understand. As a former Roman Catholic who searched hard for that truth I cherish it! I am so happy that I have found the truth of salvation. It is why I left the Roman Catholic Church and its distorted teaching of tradition along with the Bible and its papacy and its pope. I renounced the Roman church and its view of the Bishop of Rome as the final authority and head of the church. As a Protestant I believe the Bible is the final Authority. As a Protestant I believe Christ alone is head of his church. As a Presbyterian we are all members of the Priesthood of Christ. It is why I am now an evangelizing Protestant who looks forward to professing my faith publicly as a Presbyterian.

In grace,
Dudley

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 06:48:11 EST-----

A Reformed Protestant friend sent me the following article today and I believe it can have much value for Ben, Confessor when dialoging with Roman Catholics on their forum. 

The following is the article:

A Roman Catholic theologian and professor of religious studies at Siena College, (a Franciscan college in NY) Fr. Dennis D. Tamburello, in an article on Reformed-Catholic dialogue, concurs with Calvin’s emphasis on piety, in which the goal is not to know God theoretically or intellectually but to give glory and praise to God, who is the “fountainhead and source of every good.” He applauds Calvin’s teaching on the centrality of Christ where Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “Christ, when He illumines us into faith by the power of His spirit, at the same time so engrafts us into His body that we become partakers of every good.”
Tamburello cites Calvin’s teaching on the Sacraments, especially on the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper) as a major contribution. He highlights the fact that Reformed Protestants hold to the “real presence” and not just an empty symbolic remembrance of Christ in communion and notes that in the Reformed-Roman Catholic joint statement on “The Presence of Christ,” both traditions hold to “belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” Of course, there are some significant differences here because Calvin and Reformed Protestants reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvin and Reformed Protestants believe that in receiving the elements of communion as believers we are drawn up into the life of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and thus our communion with Christ is both spiritual and real.

Lutheran theologian and Academic Dean of Concordia Theological Seminary (Fort Wayne, IN), Lawrence Rast wrote that though there are differences between Luther and Calvin, Calvin had a deep and abiding respect for Luther and even as he pushed the Reformation beyond Luther, Calvin sought to remain authentic to Luther’s purpose, even though this did not mean unequivocal agreement with Luther’s exegetical or doctrinal conclusions. Rast states they “worked in the same context, and even shared the same road at times.” Of additional interest is the fact the Luther wrote far more on doctrine of predestination than did Calvin, even though Calvin’s theology is often summarized (incompletely) by that doctrine. 

Retired Episcopal Bishop C. Fitzsimmons Allison credits Calvinism in the works of Anglican evangelicals beyond the statement on predestination found in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Allison notes the works of Anglicans Augustus M. Toplady who wrote the hymn “Rock of Ages,” John Newton, author of “Amazing Grace” and the preaching of George Whitefield as drawing heavily upon the theology of John Calvin. 

As a Reformed theologian I believe as we commemorate the 500th. birth date of John Calvin, we should be reminded that the vitality of his teachings lie in the fact that they are an exact and logical theology, warmed by the intensive fires of devotion to the Holy Scriptures. John Calvin zealously proclaimed the free grace of God to a world blind to His ineffable glory. Calvinists hold that a Christian’s greatest comfort is in knowing that we are not citizens of this world trying to make it into heaven, but rather we are citizens of heaven trying to make it through this world.

Therefore, on this 500th. anniversary year of Calvin’s birth, no one need take any great pain to convert the world to Calvinism. Rather, for those of us (Protestants and Catholics alike) who love the Word of God and who in it have found Jesus Christ to be the revealer of the Father, we can best honor Calvin, not by giving honor to him, but by always rendering to his Lord our complete and undivided love, honor and service. In short we can best honor Calvin (or for that matter any great Christian past or present) by honoring Christ alone.

In grace,

Dudley


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Confessor said:


> Yes to both.  I have basically refuted the latter thus far.


You are argue very extremely well!! You won, but they continue to argue away.

I looked at the first page and I saw typical Roman confusion of justification with sanctification. This, as is usual in my experience, is the crux of their problem.

The true catholic faith (ie, Reformed), never confuses the two concepts. When Romanists confuse the two, they arrive at the heresy of Pelagius.

To correct this Roman heresy, it is necessary to distinguish justification from sanctification.

Only Jesus Christ can justify our sins.

Only the Holy Spirit can transform us.

Thus, no works we do can either justify or sanctify us. Only God can do these. Only Jesus Christ can save us.

If we think that we are justified by our good works, then Christ died for nothing.

If we think we our sanctified by our good works, then we no longer make sense. One's sinful nature can never produce good works; one must be sanctified to some degree first.

In other words, we neither justify or sanctify ourselves, only God does these. Only Jesus Christ saves. Thus good works never lead to salvation.


----------



## Confessor

One thing that might seem kind of obvious, but I never really ask Catholics, is what part of the Catholic faith is the Gospel? How is works-salvation "good news"? It doesn't differentiate from the thinking of unreached heathens.


----------



## dudley

*Answer really none...*



Confessor said:


> One thing that might seem kind of obvious, but I never really ask Catholics, is what part of the Catholic faith is the Gospel? How is works-salvation "good news"? It doesn't differentiate from the thinking of unreached heathens.



Answer really none... the roman catholic faith distorts the Gospel. It teaches a message that is contrary to the Gospel. 

The following also attests to the Protestant doctrine of Justification. It also attests to me why the Church of Rome is wrong in condemning the Protestant doctrine and distorting the truth. It is why I am now a Protestant and why I renounced the RC church.

In Titus Ch. 3 v. 4 - 5, I read: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...”.

The words of Romans Ch. 3 v. 24, summed it all up. They read: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I could now see that God gave Salvation FREELY to sinful man. The sinner was not required to work for it.

Dudley


----------



## Dovecat

Confessor... While I applaud your efforts to shine the light of truth into the dusty halls of tradition I would like to suggest to you that you temper your language in love. When I began chatting on IRC and reading forums back in the 90's I was still in the church of my childhood (UMC). I can assure you I didn't arrive where I am today from being debated into it. I am forever thankful to two reformed individuals that took the approach of digging into scripture with me and allowing the truth therein to speak rather than beating me about the head with doctrinal terms and quotations. Let me also say that their love of God was so evident that it added weight to their words. 

I'm sure most Roman Catholics are in the church of their childhood. That is their reference point. It doesn't mean they will necessarily remain there. Keep a humble spirit, show love and respect for the individual, and above all let your love of God be evident in all you say. Maybe someday one of them will be posting here saying how a "reformed person" gently showed them the truth. 

God Bless your Efforts!


----------



## ExGentibus

Confessor said:


> One thing that might seem kind of obvious, but I never really ask Catholics, is what part of the Catholic faith is the Gospel? How is works-salvation "good news"? It doesn't differentiate from the thinking of unreached heathens.


As an ex roman catholic, I guess one common answer - though not that of the educated apologist - would be that the "Gospel" is merely the New Testament, which replaces the OT because Jesus Christ removed the hindrance of the Father's wrath for the whole umanity. We can now forget about those frightening Old Testament stories, which were intended for the Jews anyway, and just love our neighbours, because God is love. 
This is pretty much what I heard from most catholic pulpits in 20 years.


----------



## DTK

louis_jp said:


> If that's the case, then one can argue scripture, history, logic, exegesis, etc., all day long and not get anywhere. Either you accept the Church's authority as a presupposition or you don't.
> 
> Is this correct? If so, how does one get around this?


Sorry, I overlooked this question until a friend called my attention to it.

In spite of this presupposition, Romanists themselves will attempt to present a picture of church history that harmonizes with their presupposition, and they usually don't think "out of the box" of their basic presupposition when trying to make a case for their position.

I think what you have to do is to demonstrate the error of their presupposition by showing that it doesn't "square" with the facts as they presuppose them to be in their favor. I think that you also have to show that their claim to that "infallible" human magisterium for the interpretation of the Bible is a theory that in reality does not even exist for them in any kind of practical way that would prove their claim. Practically speaking, no infallible human magisterium exists for them, as such, because their own communion has never produced anything close to an infallible commentary on the Bible. It's an empty claim.

I usually then proceed to show them that even the ECFs appealed to the Holy Scriptures themselves for the adjudication of theological controversy rather than some human magisterium.

As I indicated before, not all Romanists are as unashamed as Manning was to put forth his dogmatic claim so blatantly, though they all hold to his presupposition. They have been taught that the history of the church substantiates Rome's claims, and believe that to be the case even though, as a general rule, they've never investigated those claims historically for themselves. There is indeed a great disparity between history as they wish it to be and history as it is. 

But as Reformed churchmen, we must always trust in the spirituality of God's inscripturated word to accomplish efficaciously the purpose for which God gave it...and to do so in the prayer that the the Divine Author Who gave us the Scriptures will convict and convince them persuasively with His own word.

DTK


----------



## dudley

*Try again to be gentle when dialoguing with the roman catholic*

Pastor D. T. King said:"As I indicated before, not all Romanists are as unashamed as Manning was to put forth his dogmatic claim so blatantly, though they all hold to his presupposition. They have been taught that the history of the church substantiates Rome's claims, and believe that to be the case even though, as a general rule, they've never investigated those claims historically for themselves. There is indeed a great disparity between history as they wish it to be and history as it is." I concur completely.

Another friend here on the PB who like me is an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant wrote me earlier today and said" :"Pope Benedict is "roman catholic" to the core for sure and will be a polarizing figure which is what the Protestant faith needs."

I left the roman catholic church in January 2006 and initially became an Episcopalian because I was comfortable with the similarities to the Roman church and while I began to reject the pope I was still very Roman catholic in many ways and also wanted a sacramental church like Roman Catholicism but without the pope, Anglicanism and The Episcopal church was what made sense to me.

However even before the summer of 2007 I began to question roman catholicism entirely and began a study of the Protestant Reformation. What led me on a deeper search for the truth was however a statement made by The Vatican and the pope in July 2007 that the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as “not proper Churches.” I was appalled and as I said I left Roman catholicism at first because I believed the current pope was going back to pre Vatican II teachings.

The document said:"that the Orthodox church suffered from a “wound” because it did not recognize the primacy of the Pope. The wound was “still more profound” in Protestant denominations, it added. It was “difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them,” said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Roman Catholicism was “the one true Church of Christ.” 

The document also said that the Second Vatican Councils opening to other faiths – including “ecclesial communities originating with the Reformation” – had recognized there were “many elements of sanctification and truth” in other Christian denominations, but had also emphasized that only Roman Catholicism was fully Christ's Church."

I began to see that nothing new was really said, but that document in my mind did clarify the way in which the Vatican has torn apart Christianity because of its lust for power. They remind us that in their view that to be a true church one has to accept the ludicrous idea that the Pope is in some special way the successor of the apostle Peter and the supreme earthly leader of the Church. 

I had already begun to understand that these claims cannot be justified, biblically, or historically, yet they had been used not only to divide Christians but to persecute them and put them to death. 

It was then that I openly stated and wrote to many that I renounce the errors and pretensions of Roman Catholicism and its false teachings and I further disclaim her bishop of Rome, the pope to be the successor of Peter and the head of Christ's church. It was then I began to not only renounce the pope but Roman Catholicism entirely. 

I believe now that it takes no courage to sign up as a Protestant. To live by the truths of historic Protestantism, however, is an entirely different matter. That takes courage in today's context.

I have mentioned in other papers that I never thought I would leave Roman Catholicism and become a Protestant. My faith Journey from roman catholic to Presbyterian Protestant has now also led to my becoming anti papacy and anti pope.

I began doing an extensive study of the Protestant Reformation from the perspective of Protestant writers and Theologians. I centered a lot on the reformers Luther, Calvin and Knox. I studied Luther's Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone and I began concentrating on the Reformed Theology of Calvin and Knox. I then read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the short and long catechisms of the Presbyterian Church. I started to attend services a 3 different Presbyterian churches in February 2007. I joined a Westminster class at one congregation and in the process discovered my beliefs were Calvinist and I knew I was in soul by Gods amazing grace a Reformed Protestant.

I continued to study the Protestant Reformation with fervor and I became convinced and a believer in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. When I accepted the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and realized that salvation is by grace alone I could no longer say I was a Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian. I renounced also the ecclesiastical authorities of both churches. I renounced the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the pope, as Christ's head of his church on earth. I fully understood that only Christ heads his church. When I renounced the Ecclesiastical structure, I searched and found Calvin, Knox and the reformed Protestant Presbyterian faith. I knew I was a Protestant and was experiencing as did Calvin "a true Protestant conversion." It was shortly later that I became a confessed Presbyterian by public affirmation and confession of faith.


It was in my own guided search by I believe the hand of the Holy Spirit that I became a Presbyterian in faith not only a Protestant.

Help the roman catholic question his beliefs and be gentle. help them discover the truth of our Reformed Protestant faith by guiding them to research and discover for themselves that it was Rome that deviated and left the true church of Christ and the apostles. All the reformers were like me at first devout roman catholics. They questioned and then knew that in order to return the church to its uncorrupted pure and true gospel foundations they had to Protest the heresies of roman catholicism and her pope. Protestants are for the truth and we protest apostasy and false teachings which run contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the process all the reformers found it fruitless to try and change Rome and her popish traditions from within they were all forced by conscience to ultimately renounce roman catholicism and her pope.
I ultimately did the same.

I renounced roman catholicism, her pope and its false teachings and became a Presbyterian in 2007.

I wrote the following to the elders and the Presbyterian minister and brought it to a meeting I had to be examined by them before making a Public confession of faith a few Sundays later in the Sunday service. It was not required but I wanted to do it.

I have encouraged the other roman catholic converts to do something similar and they have. I do because I believe that a roman catholic needs to reject openly roman catholicism and her pope to be truly free and experience a true Protestant conversion after being born again by Gods amazing grace. I renounced my roman catholic faith "and it's doctrine because it has a 'Christian" appearance while not being Christian at all." 

I Dudley Davis reject all the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic church and as a Protestant I accept, embrace and believe the following as part of my Christian Reformed Protestant faith

I believe in the God of the Bible
I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God
I believe God is trinity, one God in three persons
I believe Jesus Christ is very God of very God
I believe that the Christ has come in the flesh
I believe in the resurrection of the dead
I believe in eternal judgment

I believe in a heaven and a hell and that all who are elected by the saving grace of God and accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and thus are born again in Jesus Christ as believers of His Gospel and live the life of evangelizing his good news will be with his Father in Gods Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity.

I believe in justification by faith alone.

I sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and I submit to the teachings of the Presbyterian Protestant tenets and doctrine.

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church in doctrine and life.

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"

I believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I believe now as the Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung. 

As a roman catholic I needed to belong to the Roman Church to be saved. I had to do good works and work with much effort and much guilt to save myself. I know now as a Protestant that none of this could save my soul. Salvation was bestowed because of Gods mercy. Salvation by Faith alone...the Protestant doctrine of Justification. 

I now understand the scripture when it says in Titus Ch. 2 v. 11, I read: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” 

These words make it very clear that Salvation is by Grace. It is God reaching down to the helpless sinner, revealing to him that He loves him so much that He sent His Son to the cross. There, He took the sinner’s place by becoming his substitute. He paid the penalty for sin that the sinner should have paid. 

Try again to be gentle when dialoguing with the roman catholic guide them to the sources let them discover for themselves and God and the Holy spirit I believe will do the rest.

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## Hebrew Student

DTK,

I was wondering something about all of this.

The other day I was thinking about a statement that John Martignoni made. He called the Bible a "Catholic book." I wondered how that could be, given that, according to Rome, you need church tradition to accurately understand the Bible, both in the partim partim and material sufficiency viewpoints.

Then, something hit me. You see, what that means is that the Bible is not Catholic unless one has the traditions of the church to understand it. This seems to reek gnosticism. The gnostics believed that you needed their secret knowledge in order to understand the scriptures. The reason I bring this up is because I know that other scholars have argued that other dogmas of the Catholic church have came from gnosticism, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary for example. To your knowledge, has anyone ever postulated the idea that the Roman Catholic view of epistimology has its roots in Gnostic thought?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## DTK

Hebrew Student said:


> To your knowledge, has anyone ever postulated the idea that the Roman Catholic view of epistimology has its roots in Gnostic thought?



The answer to your question is yes...

*Gerhard Maier: *To summarize: enscripturated revelation maintains that it is accessible and sufficiently clear for every person to understand. True, it links comprehensive understanding and existential transformation to the gift of the Holy Spirit. But philological understanding and the essential content lie open to every person. The Christian community itself requires no special class of people “in the know” who alone are competent to open up Scripture’s meaning to the rest. Therefore, we abide by the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture in the double sense alluded to above.
The protest against the perspicuity of Scripture has traditionally come from three quarters: from Gnosticism, from the champions of the Catholic teaching office, and from historical-critical theologians. Gerhard Maier, _Biblical Hermeneutics_, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 183.

Another who made this observation is the man to whom we indebted for the massive and only Greek Patristic Lexicon, G. W. H. Lampe...

*G. W. H. Lampe:* In Gnosticism, therefore, we encounter for the first time the idea of unwritten tradition as an authority for doctrine. Unlike orthodox tradition, it is neither the raw material, as it were, of what is to become Scripture, nor the explication of what is contained in Scripture. It is wholly independent of Scripture and is even superior to it, since only in the light of the tradition can Scripture be understood. Doctrine and practice alike are founded upon it. It claims to be apostolic tradition, handed down in succession from the apostles. The Gnostic theory was reasonable enough, given the doctrinal principles of the movement. Having denied the historical basis of the gospel, the Gnostics seek to reinterpret it in alien terms with the aid of a spurious tradition. A similar theory of tradition, however, adopted from different motives, is by no means unknown today. Quoted from his essay in F. W. Dillistone, ed., _Scripture and Tradition_ (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955), p. 40. Lampe does not specifically mention Romanism, but in the context of his article there is no doubt that he had it in mind.

The late Peter Toon also draws the same parallel in his own observation with respect to Gnosticism and the claims of Roman Catholicism. After speaking of the first century Church, which viewed the teaching of Scripture as being in essence identical to Tradition, he then proceeds to note...

*Peter Toon:* Later in the history of the Church a need was felt to supplement Scripture by teaching from Tradition and this is the ‘supplementary view’. Gnostics adopted this position in the second century and it was the commonly held view in Roman Catholicism from the sixteeth to the nineteeth century. Peter Toon, _Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism_ (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), p. 138.

And then we have the following words from Augustine himself, who does not mention Gnosticism explicitly, but does identify this elitist mentality of special knowledge as heretical...

*Augustine (354-430): *And yet all these utterly senseless heretics, who wish to be styled Christians, attempt to color the audacities of their devices, which are perfectly abhorrent to every human feeling, with the chance presented to them of that gospel sentence uttered by the Lord, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now:” as if these were the very things which the apostles could not then bear, and as if the Holy Spirit had taught them what the unclean spirit, with all the length he can carry his audacity, blushes to teach and to preach in broad daylight.
*It is such whom the apostle foresaw through the Holy Spirit, when he said: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate XCVII, §3-4.

Romanists use the very biblical passage that Augustine cites above as a basis for their attempts to prove unwritten tradition as supernatural revelation. But Augustine interprets that passage in a very different way (as you can see) than Romanists do.

DTK


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Interesting, I'm not very well trained in Church history, Pastor King, but I recently made the observation that their approach to the issue of Sola Scriptura resembles the nature of the early Gnostics. Thank you for the confirmation.


----------



## JennyG

Dovecat said:


> Confessor... While I applaud your efforts to shine the light of truth into the dusty halls of tradition I would like to suggest to you that you temper your language in love. When I began chatting on IRC and reading forums back in the 90's I was still in the church of my childhood (UMC). I can assure you I didn't arrive where I am today from being debated into it. I am forever thankful to two reformed individuals that took the approach of digging into scripture with me and allowing the truth therein to speak rather than beating me about the head with doctrinal terms and quotations. Let me also say that their love of God was so evident that it added weight to their words.
> 
> I'm sure most Roman Catholics are in the church of their childhood. That is their reference point. It doesn't mean they will necessarily remain there. Keep a humble spirit, show love and respect for the individual, and above all let your love of God be evident in all you say. Maybe someday one of them will be posting here saying how a "reformed person" gently showed them the truth.
> 
> God Bless your Efforts!



I think Dovecat is quite right here. You can never be too careful how you speak and how you present your case. Even on a site such as this, no atheists/agnostics/alienated former Church-members may be able to register but you can be certain that they will be looking at it. Therefore we have to remember at every moment whom we are representing, and do anything rather than risk causing anyone to stumble.
Jeff Allen -- well said too.
I have no Thanks button yet or I would have clicked on it!


----------



## PresbyDane




----------



## JennyG

Re4mdant -
what's that popcorn thingie supposed to mean exactly?


----------



## Athaleyah

JennyG said:


> Re4mdant -
> what's that popcorn thingie supposed to mean exactly?



I always read it to mean "sitting back to watch the show."


----------



## Reformed Thomist




----------



## Berean

Reformed Thomist said:


>


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Berean said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
Click to expand...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Athaleyah said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re4mdant -
> what's that popcorn thingie supposed to mean exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always read it to mean "sitting back to watch the show."
Click to expand...

And generally implying "I am not going to touch that even with a ten-foot pole!" That is, enjoying the anticipated spectacle to come. In other words, when elephants are dancing it is best to just get out of the way! 

AMR


----------



## JennyG

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Athaleyah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re4mdant -
> what's that popcorn thingie supposed to mean exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always read it to mean "sitting back to watch the show."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And generally implying "I am not going to touch that even with a ten-foot pole!" That is, enjoying the anticipated spectacle to come. In other words, when elephants are dancing it is best to just get out of the way!
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...

ok, and thank you!
But that only half answers. What spectacle is anticipated?
I'm new here and from the backwoods of Scotland, please bear with me. Did I say something I shouldn't have?


----------



## Confessor

Oh my gosh, these guys can be annoying.

In the James 2:24 thread, their new strategy has been to bombard me with as many objections as possible, most of which are nonsensical.

EDIT - I apologize, this post was made in haste.


----------



## Confessor

Hello all,

One of the members on the Catholic Answers forum is still debating me on James 2:24, and he made the following argument:

James 2:23 is quoting Gen 15:6, which is an actual moment of justification-salvation, thus that is the context for v24. It would be equivocation for James to speak of *two types* of justification in verses 21, 23, 24. This argument is further strengthened by realizing the Greek text has the same root for righteousness and justify (*dikaio*o and *dikaio*sune).​
Basically, he is arguing that Gen. 15:6 refers to a point when Abraham was justified (in the sense that Paul would use the term), and that James 2:24 is using "justified" in the same sense as Abraham was "righteous" in Gen. 15:6. This would imply that the justification spoken of in James 2:24 is in fact a _legal standing before God_, thus undermining the Protestant position.

This argument seems to have a weakness in it, but I can't put my finger on it. Any assistance?


----------



## louis_jp

Confessor said:


> Hello all,
> 
> One of the members on the Catholic Answers forum is still debating me on James 2:24, and he made the following argument:
> 
> James 2:23 is quoting Gen 15:6, which is an actual moment of justification-salvation, thus that is the context for v24. It would be equivocation for James to speak of *two types* of justification in verses 21, 23, 24. This argument is further strengthened by realizing the Greek text has the same root for righteousness and justify (*dikaio*o and *dikaio*sune).​
> Basically, he is arguing that Gen. 15:6 refers to a point when Abraham was justified (in the sense that Paul would use the term), and that James 2:24 is using "justified" in the same sense as Abraham was "righteous" in Gen. 15:6. This would imply that the justification spoken of in James 2:24 is in fact a _legal standing before God_, thus undermining the Protestant position.
> 
> This argument seems to have a weakness in it, but I can't put my finger on it. Any assistance?




I don't think it undermines the Protestant position at all. It may undermine the argument that you put forward -- that James is talking about justification before men there, and not God -- but that argument is not necessary for the Protestant view.


----------



## Confessor

louis_jp said:


> I don't think it undermines the Protestant position at all. It may undermine the argument that you put forward -- that James is talking about justification before men there, and not God -- but that argument is not necessary for the Protestant view.



Can you please explain?

If the justification in James 2:24 is the exact same type of justification Paul is using, then _sola fide_ is immediately rejected, no? He has to mean something different to avoid the contradiction.


----------



## louis_jp

According to Calvin:

It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. [Henry Beveridge, trans., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966 reprint), 2: 115.]


----------



## DTK

Confessor said:


> This argument seems to have a weakness in it, but I can't put my finger on it. Any assistance?



This is yet another example of what Mr. Flanagan tried to tell you above, and which you counsel you dismissed. The fact is that this is a very common Romanist argument designed to reject justification by faith.

But since you insisted that you are more than able by the grace of God to engage Roman apologists on their own turf, I think it will be helpful for you to work through the answer to this yourself.

Not trying to say, "he told you so," but I do not think you really tried to appreciate what Mr. Flanagan was trying to tell you. Let me put it in this analogy, "Don't go hunting bear without a loaded gun."

Blessings with tenderness to your soul,
DTK


----------



## Confessor

Rev. King,

I was asked by Mr. Flanagan to take a break from the Catholic forum (i.e., to _stop posting altogether_) simply because I asked _one question about an explicit verse citation_. I responded to him that I did not think it was necessary to go on a hiatus from the forums for that reason. I am familiar for the most part with several Catholic arguments, though obviously this does not imply that I have an exhaustive knowledge of them.

So then I return and ask for assistance with _one argument among many_ that is being argued against me, and you essentially accuse me of arrogant snobbery? *Even if I were being cocky and obstinate*, how does that _possibly_ justify your refusal to assist me -- and worse, your _proclamation that you were refusing to assist me_?

When I see you contribute to the thread just for the purpose of saying what you have said, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it when you tell me that you're not trying to tell me "I told you so." That's _exactly_ what it looks like you are doing.


----------



## JML

Confessor said:


> Rev. King,
> 
> I was asked by Mr. Flanagan to take a break from the Catholic forum (i.e., to _stop posting altogether_) simply because I asked _one question about an explicit verse citation_. I responded to him that I did not think it was necessary to go on a hiatus from the forums for that reason. I am familiar for the most part with several Catholic arguments, though obviously this does not imply that I have an exhaustive knowledge of them.
> 
> So then I return and ask for assistance with _one argument among many_ that is being argued against me, and you essentially accuse me of arrogant snobbery? *Even if I were being cocky and obstinate*, how does that _possibly_ justify your refusal to assist me -- and worse, your _proclamation that you were refusing to assist me_?
> 
> When I see you contribute to the thread just for the purpose of saying what you have said, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it when you tell me that you're not trying to tell me "I told you so." That's _exactly_ what it looks like you are doing.




Ben,

I can't speak for him but I think that Mr. King is trying to help you. Also, remember 1 Timothy 5:1, "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father." Young guys like us sometimes get carried away when older brethren try to give us good sound advice. Not trying to call you old DTK, I don't know your age but I am guessing you are older than Ben and myself.


----------



## DTK

Confessor said:


> When I see you contribute to the thread just for the purpose of saying what you have said, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it when you tell me that you're not trying to tell me "I told you so." That's _exactly_ what it looks like you are doing.



I am sorry, but I think you're missing a much bigger point here than me helping you answer a bunch of Roman sophists. What I am obliged to do is to offer you some sound advice, not to officiate or provide you with the necessary weapons to engage whatever dog fight of which you choose to be a part.

I'm sorry that "you don't buy it," because I was offering you some sound advice for free. The point is that you are not ready to engage these Romanists, and that is a far more important lesson for you to learn than it is for me to spoon-feed you the answer. It is wrong to presume upon the grace of God when one does not know what one is doing.

Blessings with tenderness to your soul,
DTK


----------



## Confessor

I understand the need to study Romanist arguments that have historically been used. I have personally written many pages (just for my personal use) in response to several arguments I have seen used against _sola Scriptura_.

Moreover, I never start arguments about things I don't know. In other words, I am very uncomfortable entering into a debate without a good knowledge of the counterarguments. I understand the principle not to engage with them before knowing about them, not to hunt for a bear without a loaded gun.

But nonetheless I am apparently underprepared in this particular debate on this particular point, and thus I asked for assistance. I did not ask if everyone could tell me everything to say on that forum.


----------



## DTK

Confessor said:


> II am apparently underprepared in this particular debate on this particular point, and thus I asked for assistance. I did not ask if everyone could tell me everything to say on that forum.



This is the second time they've "stumped" you, and the second time you've asked for assistance after informing us that "I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace."

I don't think you're ready for this, and as a pastor I have seen many young men involved themselves in the very thing you are now engaged, only to find themselves in the end converted to Rome because they found themselves overwhelmed after engaging Rome so confidently.

I am far more concerned for your soul than I am in providing you with answers. Romanists are not as stupid or ignorant as you may have imagined them to be. For every answer you provide, they'll throw 10 more objections at your answer. This is not a game you're playing - those Romanists are not playing games - they are in it for keeps.

Blessings with tenderness to your soul,
DTK


----------



## P.F.

Confessor:

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 

The "it" that was imputed refers specifically and only to faith. The verse is referring back to 

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 

Same "it" issue. But notice what James 2:23 says. It says that the statement in Genesis 15:6 was "fulfilled" at some time. When was that?

Not in Genesis 15 when Abraham believed God, but in Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated that belief through an overt act.

We find this confirmed from Genesis 22

Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for *now I know* that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 

The "two senses" is consequently reinforced, not undermined, by Genesis. Abraham was justified by faith when he believed, and that faith was confirmed by Abraham's works.

I hope that helps. I'd also encourage you to check out at least the second of the two links I provided above. It deals specifically with the lively faith issue.

-----Added 7/15/2009 at 01:53:38 EST-----

And I stick by what I said before about it being a good idea to spend the present in study rather than battle.


----------



## Confessor

Rev. King,

This is the first time I encountered a point I could not immediately answer. The other time I was simply asking for advice regarding a possible polemic on Catholic justification.


----------



## VictorBravo

Moderation

I let it slide for a while, but we don't allow discussions about discussions on other forums for a number of reasons. Particularly, we don't allow blow-by-blow critiques of other online discussions.

I think this thread is helpful in a general sense, and the counsel has been good. But the thread is too intertwined with an off-board discussion to continue.

Closed. 

If anybody wants to open a thread on common arguments used by RC apologists, and the responses to those, that is fine--but no links or references to ongoing discussions, please.


----------

