tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8643073933985931780..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sippo vs. MadridJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32558997733533124322008-02-22T23:54:00.000-05:002008-02-22T23:54:00.000-05:00They are at it again." PAt madrid sez: quote:Pr...They are at it again.<BR/><BR/>" PAt madrid sez:<BR/><BR/> quote:Protestants are not infidels. Calling them that is a needless and shameful provocation, and you should stop it, Art."Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02312881929586263135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57165887189456883302008-02-19T13:44:00.000-05:002008-02-19T13:44:00.000-05:00Carrie and Rho,I understand and sympathize with yo...Carrie and Rho,<BR/><BR/>I understand and sympathize with your dilemma of beating dead horses for millionth time. Like I said, I'm content with links to your old discussions. However, any and all the time you've given me thus far is more than appreciated.<BR/><BR/>Blessings in Christ,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Stupid Scholar</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3901751815090609672008-02-19T12:52:00.000-05:002008-02-19T12:52:00.000-05:00I think the main difference between Protestantism ...<I>I think the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is the issue of revelation/authority (i.e. Bible alone vs. Bible+Tradition+Magisterium). </I><BR/><BR/>This goes back to my chicken and egg reference. Where to start!<BR/><BR/>Yes, if we could fix the authority issue many would likely be released from the yoke of slavery. However, I think justification is really the dividing issue as that stricks most closely to the heart of the gospel.<BR/><BR/>BJ, these are good questions and forgive us if we have been on this merry-go-round before so we aren't always up to addressing these questions yet again. That is a downfall of blogging, new people come into the mix and would like to discuss issues we are now tired of discussing. And some topics are just too big for a combox.<BR/><BR/>Since this combox/post is getting a bit old and off-topic, let me start a new thread and maybe others will join in or we can find some older links.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23349277404503320562008-02-19T12:41:00.000-05:002008-02-19T12:41:00.000-05:00And Carrie, what is that website? I want to see! S...<I>And Carrie, what is that website? I want to see! </I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, I goofed up the link tag. Guess I really am not a genius.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://maryisgod.org" REL="nofollow">Mary Is God</A>Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58728465096576392152008-02-19T11:32:00.000-05:002008-02-19T11:32:00.000-05:00Rho,When did I say I didn't understand Galatians? ...Rho,<BR/><BR/>When did I say I didn't understand Galatians? I was just having difficulty understanding the grounds for your claims, but in your next-to-last past, you kindly cleared that up. Thanks!<BR/><BR/>I very well may have been drinking a cup of Joe when wrote your last post, so thanks for the warm (literally) wishes.<BR/><BR/>I've been reading this blog a lot longer than I've been posting on it. I've been reading Carrie's discussion(s) of Trent and Gary Michuta, which were appropriately timed, as I was probably half way through his book when I read her posts.<BR/><BR/>BTW, if you've discussed a lot of my questions before, can you provide links? I'm happy to read whatever... helps me avoid the work I'm supposed to do.<BR/><BR/>Oh, there are many Reformed theologians who believe that Catholicism is wrong on many points, but not completely apostate. That is what I meant. <BR/><BR/>Blessings in Christ,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Stupid Scholar</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46128493584701067282008-02-19T11:14:00.000-05:002008-02-19T11:14:00.000-05:00BJ,Haha, I missed that Stupid Theology. lolWell, ...BJ,<BR/><BR/>Haha, I missed that Stupid Theology. lol<BR/><BR/>Well, I agree that the main issue is authority. I'd say that a nearly corresponding amount of the blogposts deal directly or indirectly with that exact question - of authority, RC epistemology vs Prot epistemology, etc. <BR/>This post's content deals with just that - RC claims that its epistemology and hierarchy leads to unity that is not comparable to what Protestants enjoy. And Carrie's recent series on the canon and RC confusion on its own history touch on it as well. <BR/><BR/>Grab a cup of joe, hang around a bit. I think you'll see what I mean. :-)<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38636206805889559312008-02-19T11:12:00.000-05:002008-02-19T11:12:00.000-05:00"My hope is that the apostasy of the RCC would be ..."My hope is that the apostasy of the RCC would be so obvious that there would be no confusion. Declaring Mary a Co-redeemer and certainly making her part of the Trinity would help in that matter."<BR/><BR/>Carrie: dear sister in Christ: <BR/>Please forgive my slowness to apprehend; however, I am unable to distinguish the above from your desiring that I blaspheme the Lord our God. <BR/><BR/>May the Lord our God bless and keep you. May He cause His face to shine upon you. May he give you Peace; I most earnestly pray as your servant and brother in Christ------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37906164276323952552008-02-19T11:04:00.000-05:002008-02-19T11:04:00.000-05:00Oops, the signature should have said, "Stupid Scho...Oops, the signature should have said, "Stupid Scholar." Theology isn't stupid. Far from it.<BR/><BR/>Carrie,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for that. That helps me understand some of the philosophy of this blog, which I think I both agree and disagree with. :)<BR/><BR/>My point was that if Purgatory, Mariology, etc. are the fruits of a bigger issue, the main concern we should have is to uproot the main problem. I think the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is the issue of revelation/authority (i.e. Bible alone vs. Bible+Tradition+Magisterium). But that's probably more off topic than I already am...<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Stupid Scholar</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86154828040026122062008-02-19T10:50:00.000-05:002008-02-19T10:50:00.000-05:00I agree with Carrie about that.And Carrie, what is...I agree with Carrie about that.<BR/><BR/>And Carrie, what is that website? I want to see! And I'd like to ask about the revelation they're receiving. I wonder how such could be falsified given the RCC epistemology...<BR/><BR/>BJ,<BR/><BR/>Indulging the irrelevancy of this comment to the post...<BR/><BR/>Points 1-3 are correct, yes, you understand.<BR/>Points #1 and 2 need fleshing out as to WHY it applies to RCC, but I explained that above too, <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/sippo-vs-madrid.html#c7111087757570441391" REL="nofollow">when I said</A>:<BR/>"...they have changed the Gospel and done the very thing Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to counter - that one can contribute ANYthing to one's salvation."<BR/><BR/>It's not *I* who mean Sola Fide, it's Galatians. Read chapters 1-3!<BR/>RCC adds WORKS to justification. We can partly earn merit towards our justification, both in this life and in Purgatory. The doctrine of Purg is a symptom of a greater problem. <BR/><BR/><I>My understanding of what you have written, Rho, is that you haven't tried to prove it either; you have just assumed it.</I><BR/><BR/>B/c I've dealt with it many times before.<BR/>Serious, sober question: What about Galatians' proclamation of the definition of the Gospel isn't clear to you? <BR/><BR/><I>There are many Reformed Theologians that no one would call liberal or universalistic who flatly disagree with you.</I><BR/><BR/>About what? That RCC is apostate? Or that they have the Gospel correct?<BR/>I'm familiar with J Gresham Machen's statement that RCC is still properly called "Christian", in comparison with liberalism, but that's quite a diff thing than saying that salvation is findable within RC dogma.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68465991595143953962008-02-19T10:40:00.000-05:002008-02-19T10:40:00.000-05:00Rho,It appears that I've frustrated you, and for t...Rho,<BR/><BR/>It appears that I've frustrated you, and for that I apologize. Hopefully, I can explain my questions a bit better.<BR/><BR/>Gal. 1:8 says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed [anathema]." (ESV).<BR/><BR/>Clearly, Paul is concerned about a false gospel creeping into the church, which is obviously a VERY significant matter.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, I have missed something in your posts, but here is what I have understood you saying:<BR/>1. Rome teaches a false gospel.<BR/>2. Paul's anathema in Gal. 1:8 applies to Catholicism.<BR/>3. Catholicism is apostate.<BR/><BR/>Please correct me, if I've misread you here.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, if #1 is correct, #2 follows. However, I haven't read your support #1 or #3. I haven't seen you say, "Rome is apostate because..." or "Rome teaches a false gospel because she teaches..." This is what I would like spelled out. The closest I've seen you come is when you said, "If the RC teaching on salvation coincided with Galatians', then that would be a huge step. Maybe the only one." However, that is still quite vague. By this, do you mean <I>Sola Fide</I> or what?<BR/><BR/>Carrie says, "There is a presupposition on this blog that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the true gospel and not a legitimate church. <I>I don’t try to prove that</I>..." My understanding of what you have written, Rho, is that you haven't tried to prove it either; you have just assumed it. Again, if I'm in error here, please show me.<BR/><BR/>What I am asking is that you <I>prove</I> or at the least provide <I>some</I> reasoning for why you think that Galatians 1 applies to Catholicism. Your claims are very significant, and if true have eternal consequences. There are many Reformed Theologians that no one would call liberal or universalistic who flatly disagree with you. Please help me understand why you are right. <BR/><BR/>Carrie's two links from before were reasons for her claim that Catholics don't trust Jesus 100% for salvation. Can you show me something similar for our discussion?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Stupid Theology</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-28212635518233361772008-02-19T10:14:00.000-05:002008-02-19T10:14:00.000-05:00And with that said, I again pray for you and Carri...<I>And with that said, I again pray for you and Carrie and Gene who have each publicly attested to your desire that I and all who believe as I do should openly blaspheme God,</I><BR/><BR/>Speaking only for myself, that is not exactly what I hope. My hope is that the apostasy of the RCC would be so obvious that there would be no confusion. Declaring Mary a Co-redeemer and certainly making her part of the Trinity would help in that matter. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I came across a site that is trying to elevate Mary to the level of God, supposedly through revelation. It is quite creepy. <A HREF="http://maryisgod.org" REL="nofollow"/>Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68898550394212352162008-02-19T10:07:00.000-05:002008-02-19T10:07:00.000-05:00Why argue about Purgatory with a non-Christian is ...<I>Why argue about Purgatory with a non-Christian is it has no basis on their salvation?</I><BR/><BR/>I just wanted to jump in an answer this from my personal point of view.<BR/><BR/>I argue against seemingly non-essentials b/c it shows the bankruptcy of the system, first. Second, I tend to focus in on points that Catholic apologists use in their arsenal that are inaccurate to varying degrees. <BR/><BR/>There is a presupposition on this blog that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the true gospel and not a legitimate church. I don’t try to prove that, I work off of that idea as my posts are directed at Protestants. I do not expect to convince any Catholic online of what I believe (though that would be great), but my understanding of the issues has helped me in speaking with Catholics in real life. I hope that what I share online will also help other Protestants in their real life conversations.<BR/><BR/>That said, I think purgatory is related to salvation as it results from a deficient view of the atonement. Purgatory, Marian devotion, etc are all fruits of “another gospel” and as such, are worth addressing. I have spent some time trying to figure out where exactly Rome first went wrong, but it is like the chicken or the egg argument at this point, at least for me. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, my answer to you earlier is the simple answer. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. If we must be baptized and maintain our “salvation status” through practicing good works and/or avoiding mortal sin and/or obeying the commandments, then we no longer hope for righteousness simply through our faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross, we have added our own effort to the equation. This is why Rhology is recommending Galatians 1 to you – it deals with this idea directly.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79910393885625184682008-02-19T10:01:00.000-05:002008-02-19T10:01:00.000-05:00"Neither Gene (I'm pretty sure) nor I consider you..."Neither Gene (I'm pretty sure) nor I consider you a fellow Christian, so hopefully that helps explain part of it."<BR/><BR/>Dear Rhology, brother in Christ and fellow Christian:<BR/>I cannot supply you with any more evidence of my Christianity than my testimony and the hope I am an agent of what good fruit this venue affords. By no means is my imitation of Christ perfect. <BR/><BR/>Still, I cannot begin to imagine the burden this notion works in your heart, and I pray that it does not bring you or anyone harm. May the joy of salvation in Christ protect you.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"The use is similar b/c you quoted the psgs out of context, as LDS and atheists are fond of doing.<BR/>Hopefully that helps clarify."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm afraid I don't know how to amend this apparent wrong—if one is to be ascribed to me in this instance. If my direct unedited quoting of a single passage from the sermon on the mount with no more commentary than applying it to myself (May Jesus have mercy on me a sinner.) is "taking scripture out of context,” then surely no person may quote any scripture without being so accused. Should I have quoted the entire sermon? <BR/><BR/><BR/>I cited a fair amount of scripture in context to illustrate my own requirements for deportment toward others--especially those who wish me ill. It was Gene who projected some particular "use" of it that even now, I do not comprehend. It would seem I quoted in context and it was he that removed it to the point that I don’t even recognize whatever it is he imagines I was saying. Please also know that it is very difficult for me to “explain” my meaning in something I have not only not said, but as far as I know, I have never so much as thought.<BR/><BR/>Clearly the context of the quote and also that of what Gene quoted help demonstrate why I am obligated by our Lord Himself and I am glad to pray for your blessing and continued transformation into the righteous image of our Master. This, as I said before, was my one and only purpose in providing this quote. <BR/><BR/>If it is out of context, please explain how, so no Christian reading this exchange should interpret it as I do and make the same mistake I am making, seeing our Lord’s words, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” as literal commands that Jesus expects us to obey.<BR/><BR/>And with that said, I again pray for you and Carrie and Gene who have each publicly attested to your desire that I and all who believe as I do should openly blaspheme God, that your joy in Christ may be full, that your every step in this life continues bringing you in closer fellowship with Jesus, our only Lord and savior, and that you come to no harm.<BR/><BR/>My brothers and sisters, may the peace of our precious Lord be with you now and forever;<BR/>I pray as your humble servant and brother in Christ Jesus who is our only Lord and Savior, one in being with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit: One God forever and ever,<BR/>--Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65625821457654053342008-02-19T08:47:00.000-05:002008-02-19T08:47:00.000-05:00BJ,I didn't provide any grounds for it? What then...BJ,<BR/><BR/>I didn't provide any grounds for it? What then was that thing about Galatians 1:8 and Paul's anathema? And did I not explain exactly what I meant? "I don't understand what you mean" is not equivalent to "You didn't provide any grounds for that". <BR/>As Paul describes in Galatians 1, one essential is the doctrine of salvation.<BR/><BR/><I>If you don't formulate these, then you run around, point the finger, scream "Heretic!" and do no good.</I><BR/><BR/>Sheesh, man. I just said THAT too! Just one comment ago. Are you just not reading my comments?<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54992021537283757942008-02-19T06:26:00.000-05:002008-02-19T06:26:00.000-05:00Paul didn't write any Gospels. (Yes, I I know that...Paul didn't write any Gospels. (Yes, I I know that the word has a broader meaning, but still ... ). <BR/><BR/>And it's interestig how one suddenly jumps over to Galatians -- did my perversly heretical comment on Romans four strike a sensible cord after all? >:) :DThe Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26627085789900327342008-02-19T03:00:00.000-05:002008-02-19T03:00:00.000-05:00Rho,Thanks for replying. The reason I asked about...Rho,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for replying. The reason I asked about this is because you keep claiming Catholics are apostate, but you have provided absolutely no grounds for that statement. You quote Galatians, saying, "See, Paul talks about a false gospel, and Rome teaches a false gospel." However, there is no support for that claim.<BR/><BR/>I phrased my last question the way I did because I think it is important to know exactly the essentials are. It is absolutely important to formulate what essentials Catholics reject, or what damning doctrines they add. Is it the Marian beliefs, Purgatory, the rejection of <I>Sola Scriptura</I>, or what? If you don't formulate these, then you run around, point the finger, scream "Heretic!" and do no good. Plus, you'll end up wasting a lot of time debating issues unrelated to salvation with people you are convinced are going to Hell. Why argue about Purgatory with a non-Christian is it has no basis on their salvation? That's a waste of time.<BR/><BR/>So I'll ask again. What are the essentials that Catholicism either adds to or takes away that makes them apostate?<BR/><BR/>The Lord be with you,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow"> Stupid Scholar</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59857536764310762022008-02-18T21:44:00.000-05:002008-02-18T21:44:00.000-05:00BJ,My patience for mockers and irrational people i...BJ,<BR/><BR/>My patience for mockers and irrational people is limited. As is God's. And I have run out of patience with Lvka/Lucian. You couldn't know this, so no biggie, but he has a medium-length history here and a longer one at my own blog, where he has proven himself worthy of ignoring.<BR/><BR/>As I laid out above, the criterion for becoming anathema is indicated in Galatians. If the RC teaching on salvation coincided with Galatians', then that would be a huge step. Maybe the only one.<BR/>As for how many errors before it be true, they are legion. But those are two separate questions.<BR/><BR/>I made that 1st comment precisely BECAUSE RCC is apostate. You don't and won't see me saying the same thing about, say, Methodists or Assemblies of God. Why? They're not apostate denoms. Sure, they get some things wrong, but nothing nearly so big as how to be saved. <BR/>But I want false religion to be so far away from truth that it the distinction between truth and error is beyond obvious. And you should too.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Theo,<BR/><BR/>Neither Gene (I'm pretty sure) nor I consider you a fellow Christian, so hopefully that helps explain part of it.<BR/>The use is similar b/c you quoted the psgs out of context, as LDS and atheists are fond of doing.<BR/>Hopefully that helps clarify.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7138772476016666502008-02-18T10:15:00.000-05:002008-02-18T10:15:00.000-05:00Uh, I'm not sure I follow, but I'm sure I cannot s...<I>Uh, I'm not sure I follow, but I'm sure I cannot say yes</I>. <BR/><BR/>Well, ... `t'was worth a shot anyway ... :pThe Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70351195621111835762008-02-18T09:19:00.000-05:002008-02-18T09:19:00.000-05:00Carrie, I just like the man, that's all. Him and M...Carrie, <BR/><BR/>I just like the man, that's all. Him and Martin Luther King. (No, I'm not kidding. They were both great men).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52631205840278431282008-02-18T09:02:00.000-05:002008-02-18T09:02:00.000-05:00Our brother Gene wrote in part:"You've used the te...Our brother Gene wrote in part:<BR/><I>"You've used the text just like an atheist or a Mormon. This doesn't surprise me since consistent Romanism is no better."</I><BR/> <BR/>Dear Gene, brother in Christ and loved by He who is my Master:<BR/><BR/>I'm at a loss as to how you imagine I "used" these verses; however, being the one who posted them I can tell you authoritatively my intent and purpose.<BR/><BR/>I set down those verses as an explanation and self-admonishment that I am to act in the form of charity commanded me toward a fellow Christian who desires that those who call on the name of the Lord but are in sin should raise up a rival god to worship next to the One True and Living God. How this use is similar to that of a Mormon's or atheist’s is well beyond my poor understanding. To the best of my knowledge I "used" it as does a Christian: to encourage and edify the body of Christ and to aid in the renewal of my own mind which so often seeks its own way. <BR/><BR/>I invite you to reread what I posted in the context of the litany prayer for our brother that I posted immediately before it. <BR/><BR/>To the additional verses you also quoted I have but one response: Amen!<BR/><BR/>I humbly pray that we all may better apprehend the divine truths that God has preserved for us in Holy Scripture. May He bless you in particular, Gene, with even greater peace and understanding; and moreover, may God bless your body and spirit with divine vitality and strength for his service. May you be empowered by the Holy Spirit to be a sign of and an agent for divine healing in this wounded world, and may you be joined in joy with our gracious God in eternal fellowship in the next.<BR/><BR/>In Jesus' name I pray as your servant and brother in Him who died and rose again.<BR/>--Theo------- Theo -------https://www.blogger.com/profile/12764721283763955007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82568065040900435912008-02-18T06:58:00.000-05:002008-02-18T06:58:00.000-05:00Rho,First, I think your attitude towards Lvka show...Rho,<BR/><BR/>First, I think your attitude towards Lvka shows a lack of charity. If you don't want to pay attention to him, fine, but to encourage someone else to follow suit shows neither patience nor kindness. <BR/><BR/>Second, let me ask you this: what would need to be taken away and/or added to the Catholic 'gospel' for it to return to <I>The Gospel</I>? How many errors would have to be corrected for it to return to the Truth? For the record, I am not Catholic, so as I told Carrie, I ask with all genuineness.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you said: <I>They are anathema as Paul says. I may not like it but I concede to the revealed word of God.</I> To be honest, your previous statement:<BR/><BR/><I>I'd like to see the title adopted by the RCC. And then I'd like to see Mary taken as the 4th member of a Quadernity by the RCC.<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not kidding.</I><BR/><BR/>implies that you do <I>like</I> it. After all, that was the word you used about their future lapse into more apostasy.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the response,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Stupid Scholar</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71110877575704413912008-02-17T22:56:00.000-05:002008-02-17T22:56:00.000-05:00Oh Carrie,You have, sadly, much to learn about the...Oh Carrie,<BR/><BR/>You have, sadly, much to learn about the joys (and by "joys" I mean "irritations") of dealing with Lvka/Lucian. Take him seriously at your sanity's own risk.<BR/><BR/><I>Rho has argued that "the two ["justification" and sanctification] are simultaneous"</I><BR/><BR/>That's a bunch of crock. I would never say that. <BR/>Back it up - quote me saying it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>BJ,<BR/><BR/>The RCC doesn't teach the Gospel. Their 'gospel' falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8, as they have changed the Gospel and done the very thing Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to counter - that one can contribute ANYthing to one's salvation. They are anathema as Paul says. I may not like it but I concede to the revealed word of God.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47494393839235711832008-02-17T19:59:00.000-05:002008-02-17T19:59:00.000-05:00Come on, Carrie, please say "yes".Uh, I'm not sure...<I>Come on, Carrie, please say "yes".</I><BR/><BR/>Uh, I'm not sure I follow, but I'm sure I cannot say yes.<BR/><BR/>I have been meaning to ask you, why do you use a pic of Luther for your profile? Doesn't seem like a good fit.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80549943121175224242008-02-16T20:55:00.000-05:002008-02-16T20:55:00.000-05:00Paul argues that Abraham was saved not by the deed...Paul argues that Abraham was saved not by the deeds of the Law [circumcision was an outward sign or symbol], but through faith (which worketh through love). [Faith devoid of love is not redemptive according to the same St. Paul: 1 Corinthians 13:2]. <BR/><BR/>Jacob argues that he was saved likewise not by the deeds of the Law, but by the expression and materialization of that faith [and not by its outward sign, which might or might not correspond to an inner reality; but through an act of loving faith and faithful love, which directly expresses or stems from the existence of that reality]. <BR/><BR/>This is the explanation, because it's based on their very words, not by preconceived notions which we then read into their words. :-( <BR/><BR/>The same goes for "justification": it doesn't even exist: it's a poor translation, to which an even poorer interpretation has been given. The word used there (in Romans 4) is to 'straighten', and it's a spiritual reality that took place in Abraham's soul, as true as the restoration of his physical health later on, described in the second part of the same chapter. <BR/><BR/>Again, this is the explanation: to argue as Rho has argued that "the two ["justification" and sanctification] are simultaneous" constitutes a special pleading, and it only begs the question. :-( <BR/><BR/>Come on, Carrie, please say "yes".The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82183133510286666762008-02-16T20:37:00.000-05:002008-02-16T20:37:00.000-05:00through faith aloneNot through faith alone, but th...<I>through faith alone</I><BR/><BR/>Not through faith alone, but through faith. And this faith is one that worketh through love. (Please don't try to change that).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.com