VERY Limited Atonement: Christ died for Paul

Hmmmm... Just where can that list of "essentials" be found in scripture? Is there an index or something? I must have missed that. Are you talking about the Nicene Creed - you know the one put together by the Catholic Church that you call the old whore? How about the New Testament cannon - you know -the one that we all use - the one put together by the Catholic Church that you call the old whore?

It seems to me that you have something of a credibility problem here doc. You must either renounce the NT Canon or acknowledge it as legit. However, I suppose you will take a bogus third option and spew forth with "historical" fantasies to explain away the RCC's involvement in its development.

That's nothing more than your opinion there doc... and you know what they say about opinions... Obviously, the RCC (or anyone one for that mater) can make the same baseless charges against you and your partocilar flavor of theology. You do not impress doc.

WM

 

Yes, you certainly have missed it and missed it for quite a long time. It is those things the scriptures explicitly and implicitly assert must be beleived and cannot be denied in order to be saved.

1. Gal. 1:6-9 - absolute necessity of the gospel of grace as there is "no other gospel" and any "other gospel" is ACCURSED and thus so are those who embrace it.

2. John 17:3 - absolute necessity of belief in the true God and Jesus Christ

3. John 3:6 - the absolute necessity of new birth

4. Gal. 3:10-12 - the absolute necessity of justification by faith without works

etc., etc. etc.,


There are other absolute necessities for understanding the revealed will of God

1. The revelation of truth by the Holy Spirit - 1 Cor. 2:14

2. The scriptures as the final authority for faith and practice - 2 Thes. 3:6 - the apostolic oral tradition superseded by written inspired apostolic scriptures (1 Thes. 3:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)


here are a few essentials and there are more. HOWEVER, the most important one is the gospel of grace which Rome completely perverts into "another gospel."

 

Well doc, I'm sure that a good Catholic theologian could argue their side with great rigor- probably even turning your "gospel of grace" position into a "complete perversion" and "another gospel". Personally, I don't think (based upon what I know about Catholics) that their concept of grace really differs much from that of most Christians. All I ever hear from the ones that I know, is an acknowledgment that all grace comes from God.

WM

 

Blaaaaaah! What an imagination you have! In other words, there was no essential difference between Luther and Rome on grace and the Reformation was all about nothing!

Look at your own statements! First out of one side of your mouth you say a good Catholic theologian could argue that my position was "another gospel" and then out of the other side of your mouth you argue "I don't think....that their concept of grace really differs much...." Just absolute proof that you do not understand the Biblical doctrine of grace at all - nada, zilch! And I might add, your grace is Rome's grace and therefore absolute proof that you are still a defender of Rome if not a Roman Catholic at least in doctrine!

Your in for the argument but not for the truth!

 

Please define the word "Blaaaaaah".

Why, thank you doc!

In other words? Not in my words - those would be in your words. Regarding Luther, all I can say is that Luther was a Catholic Priest, who re-discovered a Catholic doctrine (grace), in a Catholic book (the bible). If he had only studied St. Augustine a little closer, he would have found that the "doctrine of grace" was a Catholic doctrine from the very beginning.

Indeed - please do look at my own statements and, when you do, please try to read them accurately without impinging your own preconceived notions and biases upon them. Just for clarification, here is what I wrote doc:

Notice that I said "your gospel of grace" and not "the gospel of grace." There is a huge difference. You flatter yourself by thinking that your beliefs even remotely reflect the beliefs, tenants, and doctrines of actual and historical Christianity. Perhaps if you slowed down a little you wouldn't so often miss-interpret what others actually mean.

Well, that is accurate (I guess there’s always a first time)! In my opinion, I don't believe that the RCC doctrine of grace differs much from that of most Christians. By that, I mean that it is your ideas that are often in contrast to that of most Christians, not the RCC.

If by that you mean that I don't understand your strange and relatively new idea of the doctrine of grace, then I would say that your statement is correct!

Well, you may add that if you wish, yet that is all it is - an addition, and one based solely upon your own skewed belief system.

Well, if that were true doc, then I would spend countless hours on BB in fruitless arguments with others as you do. Perhaps it's time for a little honest introspection on your part doc.

WM

 

Foot in mouth disease! Could not pin you better if I tried. Thanks for the honesty that you are still a Roman Catholic as only a Roman Catholic would claim the Bible is a "Catholic book" and that St. Augustine is their authority to what "grace" is! Can't get it any plainer than that!

You and no other Catholic can deal honestly and objectively with Romans 3:19-5:1 where the doctrine of grace is dealt with in minute detail and extensively. You can't deal with the context, the terms, the tenses in any kind of exegetical fashion and still honestly and objectively support Romanized "grace." You dropped out of the discussion last time not because I was unreasonable but because you or no one else could respond to the contextual based evidence. However, if you think I am overstating it, I would be pleased to refresh your memory and go back to that text and see how you fare again! There is the guantlet and it has been thrown down.

Take the challenge!

 

You stagger me with your originallity of thought there, doc.

You do understand how the cannon of scripture came about do you not? Oh Lordy...History is a big hurdle for you isn't it. Just so you'll know, being called an RC isn't an insult to me doc. Niether is being called a Baptist, a non-denom, a Methodist, etc. I consider all of us to be brothers and sisters in Christ. You really have serious issues there, don't you doc.

Well, since you brought up the phrases "exegetical fashion", "honesty", and objectivity, I feel the need to remind you that scripture consists of much more than Romans 3:19-5:1. While I understand your need to live exclusively in Romans, Paul wasn't the only one who wrote down inspired scripture. Well, I suppose that you must reside there lest your house of theological cards come crashing down around you. Good luck with such non-intellectual gymnastics there, doc.

Hmmm...I think our last disscussion had to to with the "doctrine of demons" and NOT grace. Perhaps you can provide the "text" where we discussed the doctrine of grace. Perhaps I have forgotten it.

Goading is such a sophomoric tactic doc. However, if I can find the time to waste on such a fruitless endeavor, I might engage you - as long as we use ALL of scripture. You know, for someone who claims to be persuing a doctorate, you exhibit very little in the way of critical thinking. Stating something as fact doesn't make it so.

WM

 

We already had this discussion. First I do not accept Roman Catholic revision of history and I know you can't stand that but that is the way it is. I believe that 99% of the cannon was already determined before 150 A.D. and the old syriac and Latin translations are good indicators of that. Be that as it may, the cannon was determined long before Rome got its nasty hands on it.

Why don't you admit to the whole truth? The whole truth is that Romans 3-5 and Galatians 3-4 are designed to deal with that very subject. On the other hand you like to take refuge in a very small portion of scripture by comparison to Romans and Galatians where justification by grace is not the primary subject but simply a short excursion. However, I welcome that short exursion but I place emphasis where the scripture provides the emphasize upon the doctrine fo justification by grace and it is not the tiny portion of one chapter in James 2 but rather whole chapters devoted to it by the Holy Spirit in Romans and Galatians.

That is right. However, that is not what I meant. I meant the last time we dealt with Romans 3-4.

It was a challenge not a goad. I have never discussed this topic outside of scripture what makes you think I would this time??? I am not concerned with "critical thinking" but with "Biblical thinking" - context - truth. There are more theological idiots trained in so-called "critical thinking" then there are those who are concerned with "Biblical" thinking.

 

And just who do you think you are? I am really not much interested in your personal opinion of my beliefs. As I see it, it is either my view or someone elses view and so don't flatter yourself by thinking your opinion of my view means anything to me because it does not. What matters to me is if those who oppose my view can demonstrate by the scriptures in an objective, honest exegetical way that I am wrong. That, has not been done on this forum in regard to my view of justification by grace. Indeed, those who have opposed me thus far have simply dropped out, not because I am unreasonable, nor because I do not respond to their evidences but because so far they have not been able to give a response to the evidence I have placed before their eyes and I asked for for their response but the thread was dropped by them.

However, be glad to do it all over again!

 

Let's put this straw man argument to rest. I do not consider all professed Christians to be brothers and sisters in Christ BUT I do believe there are true brothers and sisters in Christ found in nearly all denominations despite what they have been taught and despite what that denomination teaches.

Neither did either Jesus or Paul believe that all professed believers were true brothers and sisters:

1. Some claimed him as Lord that he said he "NEVER KNEW" them as his - Mt. 7:21-23.

2. Christ taught that "tares" were closely mixed with the true seed of the kingdom and a "tare" is almost impossible to be distinguished except by a trained eye from wheat until harvest season. Then the fruit of the wheat makes the head bend over while the tare sticks straight up.

3. Paul twice referred to "false brethren."

Both taught how to have a trained eye to distinguish the true from the false (Mt. 7:13-20; 2 Cor. 11:4-11;etc.). Indeed the whole first epistle of first John is primarily dedicated to distinguishing between true and false professors.

 

Dr Walter, I fear it is you who is propogating historical revisionism here. I hope you don't also believe in the other nonsenses of Landmarkism, such as the Cathars being secret Baptists; I assume that the 'Dr' title credits you with more intelligence than to fall for that heresy. Your (presumed) reference to the Vetus Latina as evidence of the Canon being in place by mid-2nd century is misdirected as there is no such thing as a 'Vetus Latina Nt'; rather, we have a collection of various NT MSS in Old Latin. For example, the Codex Vercellensis only has the four Gospels. Similarly, the Syriac Diatesseron, to which I believe you also allude, dating from around 170AD only refers to the Gospels (we don't even have an extant MS for that!) Neither aids us in establishing the Canon of 27 NT books.

 

And you are living in a dream world.

So you live in more than one book... now its up to two. Well, at least that's some progress!

How convenient doc. You are concerned only with biblical thinking which is about as big an intellectual copout I've seen around here. And you call yourself a Dr.? There you have it - the doc is concerned only with the truth as he sees it and determines it to be so. Well, then - I guess that settles it.

 

Well, isn't that the root of the problem there doc? Your doctrine of grace is just that - your doctrine and your personal beliefs.

Well, the way I see it doc is that I have as much right to view "your doctrine of grace" as total pap as it is your right to view mine that way. The only difference is that I have seen your doctrine of grace posited here ad-nauseam, yet you have no idea what mine consists of. Oh - I’m sure you THINK that you know, but that’s another issue altogether.

Look, if you are going to get testy every time someone takes exception to your personal interpretations and internal vagaries, then you'll be testy most of the time. Wait... you are! Never mind then. :smilewinkgrin:

Now who is flattering one’s self... I think it’s more of an act of kindness on their part and one of ceaseless attrition on yours. Besides, I seem to recall you dropping out on me once. By your metric does that mean I win? Hurray - I win! You do see how childish you are at times doc?

Do what - pit my personal and fallible interpretation against your personal and fallible interpretation - especially when you set the rules by limiting the discussion to scripture alone? Hmmm…I'll bet that will advance the body of knowledge significantly.

WM

 

Gentleman,

Your obvous scorn and contempt for any other view than the Roman Catholic revisionist view of history and of textual criticism is noted and rejected. There are many scholars that note and reject it as well.

Of course, anyone who has the audacity to reject the scholarship of scholars permeated with Roman Catholic persuasion is of course regarded by you as idiots and that is precisely how Rome has dealt with her critics for centuries. She characteristically assumes the highest "scholarly" credentials while downgrading and insulting all who who refuse to drink her koolaide. So be it! However, the debate thread has been introduced on the forum and I will let my exposition do my talking and we will see if your Roman scholarship will stand up to the test of scriptures. Of course, I already know that you will heap scorn upon this post as that is the RC usual approach and so why change now right!

 

I note you fail to address any of the points raised which strongly suggests that you are unable to; resorting to insults is the refuge of the man with no argument.

 

You need to reread your own posts. You talk about speaking down with insultive tones!! I was merely commenting on that very tone that characterize the whole history of Rome toward her opponents.

I have Murdocks translation of the Peshita version and Hastings, who writes the introduction, goes over the history and development of the Syric translation with all its various roots (Maronites, Syrians of Kurdistan, Malabar, Urumiah, Melkites) and he reaches the conclusion in regard to the age of the version in the following words:

"The exact age of the Peshitto Sryiac version is unknown....others dispute this claim to high antiquity..." and the developmental stages are a matter of conjecture.

The idea that only four gospels existed based upon available ancient texts in our possession does not prove anything any more than peices of ancient papyi fragments prove they had no more of a version than those fragments. Others argue that the Peshitto developed more fully between 150-400 A.D.

However, I did not respond to WM in order to debate this subject. This was a side line issue that will go no where but to conjectures.

I have placed the primary subject on the forum and that is where the rubber meets the highway because if a denomination cannot even correctly tell others how to get from point A (earth) to point B (heaven) they have nothing else I am interested in hearing as they are void of understanding the most basic issue which is the gospel of our salvation and Rome is completely void of this truth. If you think not, then the thread is there to demonstrate I am wrong and I welcome it!

 

I addressed your points re the NT Canon. No mention of 'Rome'; that straw man was introduced by you. Your own post just now does not refute the points made by me so I'll assume you're letting them stand. Threads here have a habit of evolving from their OPs.

To answer your final point, my own denomination I believe adequately expresses this in Art XI of the 39 Articles of the Church of England thus:

 

First, I never addressed you at all. I dressed WM. You inserted yourself in our conversation. Not that it is bad to insert yourself but textual criticism is not the OP at all and my challenge to him concerned the doctrine of justification through faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone.

My understanding of your denomination is one of contradiction as you define the ordinances as sacraments with a declaration of justification by faith alone! The two do not harmonize. However, I am not saying this to create another argument with you on this point. I would simply like to enter into the primary subject that I addressed WM about and that is now on the forum and to this present hour none have attemtped to address. I did not pick a fight with you and I did not first address you. This is your fight not mine.

 

See my post on the previous page: we define the sacraments as a means of communicating sanctifying,not saving faith, much as we view reading the Bible, prayer etc in the same way.

 

Dr. Walter:

You and I have gone around this before. The doctrine of justification through faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone creates a disagreement mostly of semantics. Basically, if something is "alone" then nothing else - nothing else is required. Yet, you have three things stated as needed for justification and in the same sentence you seperate each into the catagory of "alone" which is a logical absurdity. Now, if you state it a little differently then I'm there with you:

Justification comes through faith in Christ alone by grace.

See, that wasn't hard now was it?

WM