The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

Essenes also had a mystical aspect to them. In fact, they secluded themselves in the desert ie

Sounds like Jewish Mystics to me. And if it weren't for them we wouldn't have the dead sea scrolls. Also note that there are some similiarities between them and the early christians.

 

The Essenes were not Jews. They arose in the intertestamental period. They lived ascetic lives, and yes were mystics. They had very strict rules and had all things in common. In fact they did not believe in marriage. In order to exist they had to recruit by adoption or by receiving converts. This is not a description of either Jews nor Christians.

We do not owe the preservation of our Bibles to the Essenes.
God promised to preserve His Word. How He does it is up to Him. If along the way He chose to use the Essenes that is up to Him. He is sovereign. He could chose a shepherd boy, an Egyptian Pharaoh, or anyone else. God is sovereign. He promised to preserve his word. He can do so in whatever way he wishes to do so. It was not the Essenes that preserved it; it was God.

 

I disagree they were a sect of Judaism and were Jews themselves. Thus they were Jewish Mystics.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe you are wrong.

http://www.essenespirit.com/who.html

They had nothing to do with the Jews. They considered themselves much greater than the Jews, and completely separate from them.
[/FONT]

 

How did you become a member of a Baptist church? Does this "Baptist" church believe what you do??? What kind of a "Baptist" church is it?

What you are doing is mixing the perfect works of Christ with your imperfect works as the basis for regeneration and justification as you are demanding they are not merely inseparable but they are also without any real cause and effect relationship - that makes them equal, and equally efficasious or else one could be separated from the other in regard to both justification and regeneration.

You problem is that James is not talking about justification before God but rather before men ("if a man say TO ME....SHEW ME...")as necessary evidence before men that one's profession is true. Rahab and Abraham demonstrated their faith before men (Abraham's servants, Isaac; two spies, nation of Israel by red cord). Paul is not speaking about justification before men but before God ("justified before God" - Rom. 4:1). Second, your problem is that the works of Jesus Christ are sinless but your best works as a child of God are not without sin (I Jn. 1:8-10). To place them on the same level (and that is exactly what you are demanding in your doctrine of justification - inclusive and inseparable) asserts that God's standard of righteousness cannot be satisfied by the imputed PERFECT righteousness of Christ - as it is inadequate, incapable and incomplete apart from imparted IMPERFECT righteousness of man, together which jointly and inseparably and ultimately justifies men in God's sight.

This confusion between justification and progressive sanctification and between regeneration and justification is precisely the bottom line rationale for Rome's doctrine of justification through sacraments. If a person admits that regeneration/justification is inseparable from "good works" then one must logically concede to Rome's view of salvation as it is built upon that very same rationale as its bottom line.

 

Dr. Walter, why are you making this debate personal to Thinkingstuff? No one on this board has revealed more about his salvation journey than Thinkingstuff. If you go back and read his posts, he is totally transparent. I don't know why you have so much difficulty with the concept that a person can describe things to you, and quite accurately, even though he doesn't necessarily believe them.

Your question, "How did you become a member of a Baptist Church?" only shows that you know little about Baptists outside your fundamentalist circle. In my church, and I believe in Thinkingstuff's church as well, all you have to do to become a member is go forward at the invitation and say you believe in Jesus and want to trust Him as your personal savior, and you want to be baptized and join. That's all they want to know.

 

The apostle John wrote to Jewish believers (Gal. 2:9) as his ministry was to the circumcision. Yet, he defines sin as the "transgression of the law" (I Jn. 4:6). What law?

The apostle Paul wrote to Gentile churches who had a mixture of Jews and Gentiles and he defines sin the very same way in Romans 3:19 and says that the "WHOLE WORLD" is condemned by "the law"? He said the same law reveals the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). He says the same law manifests the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21). What law?

Jesus was born "under the law" and came to fulfil "the law" and he is "the end of THE LAW" for righteousness. What law?

If you define "the law" as used above as something restricted to the Jew only having no relationship to Gentiles then must not you also restrict all the characteristics that define as well as fulfil that law above only to Jews as well? Hence, there is no righteousness of Christ for Gentiles as it is this same "law" he was born "under" and "fulfilled" both with his life and death as it is this same law that said all are cursed that hang upon a tree (Gal. 3:14-15)? Hence, there is no redemption from sin for Gentiles because Gentiles never transgressed the law that Christ provided Himself as payment for its violation. There is no righteousness for Gentiles as the righteousness of Christ was defined "under" that law. This kind of thinking is pure stupidity that belongs to apostate theologions.

The truth is that the Judaic law is God's most comprehensive standard of righteousness ever given to human beings and manifests the rightousness of God more completely than anything God has given to man apart from his Son whose own life fulfilled THAT SAME JUDAIC LAW.

The truth is that if the JEW could not be justified by doing "good" as defined by the JUDAIC law then no human being can be justified by doing "good" and thus NO FLESH can be justified by doing "good" works - thus THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE!

The truth is that ONLY the good works of Jesus Christ satisfy God's standard of "good" and therefore if anyone is to be justified before God "ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS" it must be by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in the good works of Jesus Christ ALONE totally and completely WITHOUT YOUR GOOD WORKS as to include your "good" works is to repudiate Jesus Christ as the propiation of the law and to declare yourself as GOOD as GOD.

This is not a question about rather regenerated persons are being changed from from one imperfect state to another imperfect state or glory to glory by the Spirit of God (2 Cor. 3:18). This is not a question whether those created in Christ Jesus imperfectly produce "good works." This is not a question whether imperfect and incomplete holiness is the fruit of regeneration and justification. This is a question of what satisifes God's standard of righteousness. Perfect righteousness OR Imperfect righteousness? This is a distinction between the SINLESS provision of Christ FOR US and imputed to us by faith VERSUS the imperfect progressive imparted righteousness of Christ through us.

This is the difference between the Law's demand for absolute sinlessness to escape eternal condemnation and inherit eternal life VERSUS rewards now and in heaven for relative righteousness produced through us.

The former requires a PERFECT and ABOLUTE sinless righteousness while the latter requires only an IMPERFECT but RELATIVE righteousness.

It is the difference between Matthew 5:19 and Matthew 5:20. In Matthew 5:19 those already saved can violate the least of commandments and teach other to violate them and yet the only eternal consequence is to be "the least IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN - that speaks of rewards IN HEAVEN.

However, in regard to entrance into heaven, except your righteousness EXCEED the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall in no wise ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN - Mt. 5:20. The righteousness that EXCEEDS the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees is only defined by EXCEEDING the method of interpretation of the Law as used by the Scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:21-47). The Scribes and Pharisees interpreted the Law's standand of righteousnesss LESS than absolute righteousness. They interpreted the Law by the traditions of the elders who would interpret the law against adultery as merely the external act rather than the thoughts and intents of the heart. They interpreted the law so that they were able to keep it. However, the true interpretation of the law demands SINLESS PERFECTION - "Be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).

The righteousness demanded by God to enter heaven EXCEEDS the RELATIVE interpretation of the Law by the Scribes and Pharisees. It EXCEEDS the best of the best of men. It demands THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD which is sinless perfection. This is why Jesus told a law keeper - THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE and THAT IS GOD.

Matthew 5:20-48 define the STANDARD of righteousness to ENTER heaven which only Christ fulfilled (Mt. 5:16-18). You must obtain His righteousness to enter heaven - sinless perfection (mt. 5:48). Matthew 5:19 defines the STANDARD of righteousness to receive REWARDS in heaven which is RELATIVE righteousness as some will be "LEAST' while others will be "GREATEST" in heaven due to their own works.

Romanism and most on this forum mix these two for entrance into heaven when the Scriptures separate them. Matthew 5:19 has NOTHING to do with entering heaven while Matthew 5:20 has EVERYTHING to do with entrance into heaven.

Those who came before Christ in Matthew 7:21-23 came on this MIXED confusion of SINLESSNESS and SINFULNESS foundation of sand - "Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done...in thy name." This is not doing the will of God for entrance into heaven as entrance into heaven demands a profession in CHRIST ALONE and when you mix Christ's righteousness with your righteousness you get "inquity" (v. 23). It is not the house that determines whether you stand or fall in judgement but the FOUNDATION upon which the house is built (mt. 7:24-27). "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." - Jn. 6:40.

If this is your foundation - the perfect righteousness of Christ (I Cor. 3:11) then your house (life) can be burned to the ground but your "soul" shall still be saved even as by fire (I Cor. 3:12-15). It is this teaching that cause Paul's adversaries to suggest that such a doctrine of grace would lead God's children to sin (Rom. 6:1) because where sin abounds grace much more abounds (Rom. 5:22).

 

what...you trying to preach there doctor?

In XC
-

 

He is presenting a doctrine of justification that is HIS OWN, which is totally irreconciable with historic Baptist faith and practice. The Philadelphia Baptist Confession of faith and the New Hampshire Confession of faith are the oldest and most accepted confessions of faith in American Baptist History. The SBC confession is based upon the New Hampshire confession. His view of mixture of justification with sanctification and regeneration is not Baptistic at all but is of Rome.

It is the doctrine of justification that is the point of difference between historical Baptists and all sacramentalists. It is this doctrine that is the divisive point that separates all on this forum into two distinct sides and it is this doctrine that is at the heart of the debate between all of us on nearly all the threads we are discussing.

Thinkingstuff has embraced the Sacramental view of justification in regard to its essential distinction - inseparable merge between good works and faith for justification before God.

 

That salvation is through grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone, and has nothing to do with works.

 

wow...1742...that's old...or should I say..."modern"...yeah, since the Church has been in existence for oh...some 2,000 years...did it really take American Baptist some 1700 years plus to figure it all out? Certainly not?!

In XC
-

 

The RCC is still figuring it out. It changes every day.
After all the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was only declared as official dogma in 1950 by Pius XII. Even after that declaration, it is still heretical. :laugh:

 

I don't know what about the doctrine is "heretical" since we have OT examples of such...but yes, it's odd that not only was the assumption of Mary offically recognized as dogma then, but others as well...one of the reasons i'm Orthodox and not Roman Catholic...but i'm sure you'll have something to say about that...:laugh:

In XC
-

 

No! The New Testament is the first delcaration of "the faith" given by Baptists to the world and from which Rome departed and these Baptists confessions stay true to the New Testament teaching of justification by faith.

However, I was talking about American's and American's do not go back to Palestine but to England and the oldest and most commonly adopted American Baptist confessions of faith repudiate the doctrine of justification presented by Thinkingstuff. If you are going to claim to be a Catholic and identify with Catholics then either be true to their major tenets or go to a denomination you believe represents the essential truths of the New Testament and justification by faith is an essential truth of the New Testament. Likewise, if you claim to be a Baptist then stick with the essential tenets of historical Baptists or go find a denomination that does.

 

I don't think you're stating his beliefs correctly but even if you are, so what? He is entitled to those beliefs, and they are not unscriptural although they do seem to be at odds with yours.

 

I stated precisely what I believed were the cause and effect relationships between being "created in Christ Jesus" and "good works" by pointing out the word "unto" which demands works are a effect rather than the cause of being "created in Christ." The cause of being created "in Christ Jesus" is specifically defined to be "We are GOD'S WORKMANSHIP" not our works. He responded by denying there is any cause and effect relationship but they are INSEPARABLY one.

I pointed out that Justification by faith "in" the provision of Christ defines the cause of justification - the sinless life and death of Christ whereas what we do "by" faith is the consequence not the cause for justification before God. He rseponded by denying any cause and effect relationship between faith "in" Christ versus our response to justification "IN" Christ by faithfulness "TO" Christ.

There is no confusion here at all, and there is no misunderstanding by me, if, his words mean anything. He repudiates the historic Baptist position of justification by faith without works and adopts the Roman Catholic view of justification through or by works.

 

My point is, Dr. Walter, he is entitled to his belief even if it is as you say. Debate him about it but don't attack him. Your attitude is that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is inferior, or devious, or probably even lost and you must change them to your way of thinking. Well I have news for you, the people who post here are well grounded in their faith and not likely to change because of anything you say.

 

I've never claimed to be Baptist...maybe you've missed a few of my previous posts, but I'm Orthodox Christian...have been for the past 3 years.

In XC
-

 

Not much difference between Catholic and Orthodox anyway.

 

You better go back and read the post that began this "baptist thing. He was the one that stated that I had taken a position contrary to what Baptist believed. Attacking him according to you, is simply pointing out the truth that it is he not I, that is inconsistent with historic Baptist doctrine. Asking what kind of Baptist church would embrace non-baptist doctrine and/or those who oppose justification by faith without works is an attack as you see it but it is a very good question as I see it. Worry about yourself and I will take care of myself.