Featured Protestant exclusion from RC communion

I didn't mention that there was no such thing as objective truth. I simply stated that everyone looks at scripture through biased lenses. You think you have the truth of scripture, others think you do not.

WM

 

Right... And you have existed in an intellectual void rendering you a tabula rasa. My statement stands. If it fits you, then so be it.

Billy

 

Sola Scriptura is not a false doctrine but is the very declaration of scripture itself (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).

What is ignorance is the idea that unaided human reasoning alone is sufficient to interpret scriptures (1 Cor. 2:14; Mt. 13:9-10). The scriptures are written in a contextual manner to be understood by human reason aided by the Holy Spirit. The unaided human mind will not receive the truth of the scriptures no matter how clearly the truth is stated. The problem is not in the scriptures but in the mind approaching the scriptures.

 

Again, you are denying any objective basis for truth. You are denying any "know so" confidence of truth that is clearly and repeatedly stated in scripture that God's people can know through the scriptures (1 Jn. 5:13; etc.). Your view supports only eisgesis rather than exegesis.

 

The "blessedness" is imputed righteousness and remission of sins and that blessed state is conveyed WITHOUT divine ordinances as the ABSOLUTE for justification by faith before and after the cross to all who are the children of Abraham among both Jews and Gentiles - vv. 9-12. The "sign" and "seal" of divine ordinances merely give testimony of the "righteousness" already "HAD" by justification through faith and that is the silver stake driven into the heart of the Roman Catholic heart of sacramentalism.

 

Your statement is simply crass ignorance. If your statement stands then scriptures fall as the scriptures clearly and explicitly contradict your statement.

 

First the point of Romans 4 is not blessedness. Its about faith with the end Goal of reaching obedience by that faith.

Secondly it still has nothing to do with babylonian rites or that to make present realites of things previously.

 

No it is not true. The problem of confusion and division over scripture is very simple. Sound priniciples of exegesis are simply rejected when they come to the scriptures. The Word of God is RATIONAL and the REVELATION of God's will presented in a CONTEXTUALLY DEFINED form and "cannot be broken." We are commanded to "rightly divide the word of truth" and that is precisely the point where division and confusion enters into the picture. Those who hold false doctrine simply do not "rightly divide the word of truth" and doctrinal error can always be traced back to eisgetical methods and/or a heart of unbelief that will not accept what they see scriptures declare.

 

Not at all. I am simply disagreeing with the absurd notion that you can know the truth without having been influenced by others.

Billy

 

You are confused! God does not convey saving grace through divine ordinances and that is precisely the message of Paul in Romans 4:6-12.

The Spirit blows where it wills is found in the context of REGENERATION (Jn. 3:8) not in the context of justification. Regeneration is a creative act of God according to His own Sovereign will not the will of man as explicitly stated previously by John (Jn. 1:13). So you are mixing oranges with apples as you are jerking a verse out of its context and applying it to something God's Word never applied it. So you are doing exactly what you condemned "man's will that it should blow"

 

Then you are denying the truth that God can directly reveal truth through study of the Scriptuers IN SPITE OF OTHERS and IN SPITE of what you have been taught by others.

 

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

The condemnation of the "ungodly" is due to TWO essentials. They are not righteous as defined by God's Law and they are penalized for unrighteousness.

The state of "blessedness" in verses 6-8 is the reverse of those two problems. "The ungodly" (v. 5) is imputed righteousness by faith "without works" (v.6) and his sins are "forgiven" (vv. 7-8).

Now it is how that state of "BLESSEDNESS" is received that Romans 4:9-12 considers:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

As "A.D.33" pointed out earlier, Rome believes that circumcision under the Old Covenant was replaced by baptism under the New Covenant and this is explicitly spelled out in the Catholic Church Catechism (#527; and in the glossary under "Circumcision"). This is the very defense behind the use of Colossians 2:12 by Catholic Advocates. Hence, merely substitute the term Baptized for circumcised in Romans 4:9-12 and you have the truth glaringly illustrated that baptism or any other divine rite conveys any kind of saving grace:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the BAPTIZED only, or upon the UNBAPTIZED also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in BAPTISM, or in UNBAPTISM? Not in BAPTISM, but in UNBAPTISM.
11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet UNBAPTIZED.

(NOTE: John the Baptist was the father of baptism and he was saved as he believed in the very gospel he preached in John 3:36 but was UNBAPTIZED).

Furthermore, Paul uses Abraham a PRE-MOSES saint, thus a PRE-LAW saint to prove that what is true of Abraham in regard to Justification by faith without works, without ordinances is true of ALL who are "of that faith" regardless if they had been uncircumcised or circumcised - meaning circumcision/baptism plays absolutely no part in justification by faith:

11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet UNBAPTIZED

Case closed.

 

Thank you for your comment. And really when we get down to the very basics its is really Jesus and our relationship with him as well as treating other well and loving them. Though I fall down quite often on that last count. I've also been to several denominations and studied history and scriptures and came to a different conclusion than you so I find it interesting what your conclusions were. Of course we differ on each point you made but I'm still interested in how you came to your conclusions.