tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5850139365407675090..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: A simple but helpful diagramJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66984525691411312672016-11-27T14:26:23.762-05:002016-11-27T14:26:23.762-05:00Ahh, I see it all now. I see Scott Han's conve...Ahh, I see it all now. I see Scott Han's conversion story to Roman Catholicism for what it really is. In a nutshell, the Hahn family mysteriously received a "revelation" or "new enlightenment" from God and they finally "understood" Scripture from the "correct perspective". But we know not to trust the person who has that kind of experience. Scott Hahn even claims that he stumped Protestant professors with his "new found" knowledge. The Hahn family made a conversion based solely on their emotions, not for the sake of Scriptural truth. The gospel of Romanism attracted Scott and Kimberly Hahn because they had "itching ears" to suit their own passions. They lost their salvation when they became united with that self-help, humanistic gospel.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18792122854137394612012-12-15T15:03:13.597-05:002012-12-15T15:03:13.597-05:00The reason why it seems too simple for a Roman Cat...The reason why it seems <b>too</b> simple for a Roman Catholic . . . <br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70224004915973741162012-12-15T15:00:27.878-05:002012-12-15T15:00:27.878-05:00If you read the whole book, along with McArthur...If you read the whole book, along with McArthur's two books that I referenced, you might begin to understand. <br /><br />However, seeing your other articles on Sola Fide and logizomai, and that you have read some works of Protestants on Justification, etc.; it appears that you don't understand how those diagrams do summarize and are a helpful diagram of the Biblical issues. My title says "simple", but it is not an "oversimplification" - the three views communicate the issues clearly from a Protestant and Biblical viewpoint. <br /><br />The reason why it seems to simple for a Roman Catholic is because your church has too many complicated traditions of man added onto the gospel - like penance, priests as alter Christus, ex opere operato priestly powers, the treasury of merit, mortal sins vs. venial sins, baptismal regeneration, loss of grace and salvation by mortal sin, purgatory, prayers to saints and especially all the Mary stuff; indulgences, alms as gaining merit for salvation, participation in the mass; and ability to get grace from trafficking in relics, submission to the Pope, obligation to believe in the dogmas of 1854, 1870, and 1950 in order to have "faith" in the RCC sense, etc. <br /><br />Because your church has added all that stuff to the gospel, it seems "oversimplified" to you, but it is not. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75138821739260206442012-12-15T03:22:59.026-05:002012-12-15T03:22:59.026-05:00If the book explains or summarizes the doctrine in...If the book explains or summarizes the doctrine in terms of, <br /><br />Faith --> Justification + Works <br />and <br />Faith + Works --> Justification <br /><br />then I think these authors have grossly oversimplified the debate. These terms (Faith, Works, Justification) are understood differently and even used differently in Scripture. If that's indeed what this book says, I doubt the book even gave a Biblical look at what "Faith" means.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63427159505887380032012-12-14T10:43:24.710-05:002012-12-14T10:43:24.710-05:00Did they get someone else to write Armstrong's...Did they get someone else to write Armstrong's chapter?<br /><br /><br />Typo<br /><br />I thought what Armstrong wrote on dikiaow δικαιοω<br /><br />in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 was very good to show the meaning of James 2:14-16 - that it means "proved right" or "vindicate". (page 163 of my edition).<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33435174741838778202012-12-13T19:48:10.324-05:002012-12-13T19:48:10.324-05:00I didn't know they revised the book and took J...I didn't know they revised the book and took John Armstrong out - though I had heard that he softened his stance against Rome.<br /><br />The content of his chapter seems good; so I guess they took him out because he later adopted some kind of view similar to the New Perspective on Paul and softened to not calling RC a false church with a a false gospel. ( I think) <br /><br />I thought was Armstrong wrote on dikoaw in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 was very good to show the meaning of James 2:14-16 - that it means "proved right" or "vindicate". (page 163 of my edition)<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19590290937078480952012-12-13T17:56:37.443-05:002012-12-13T17:56:37.443-05:00" According to one article I read a while bac..." According to one article I read a while back, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and other RCs since Trent have said that the greatest Protestant heresy was "assurance"!!"<br /><br />And what's interesting to me, is that if you work through those writers contemporary to Luther in his early battles [1518-1525], most of them were far more concerned about Luther's view on the Pope's authority than they were justification. <br /><br />"One of the more surprising aspects of the Catholic response is that the controversy concerning justification by faith alone constituted such a small part of the literature that it must be ranked with the treatment of such topics as monastic vows and the cult of the saints." [David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Early Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518-1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 159].James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76499816315999237972012-12-13T17:47:24.160-05:002012-12-13T17:47:24.160-05:00Hey Ken!
This book has an interesting history... ...Hey Ken!<br /><br />This book has an interesting history... If I recall, it's been revised and John Armstrong has been removed:<br /><br />http://www.augustine.co.za/index.php/books/theology/doctrine/justification-by-faith-alone-revised-updated.html<br /><br />I'm working off memory here. I recall a friend of mine having both editions. It's been about 5 years though, so perhaps my recollection isn't accurate.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com