- This topic is empty.
- Posts
It would seem that James refutes you, but your thoughts are layered based upon your presuppositions about Jesus, Peter and Paul and your belief that the teachings of Jesus were short lived.
Quote CA,
First you say that all Catholics are bound to believe in grace alone and then you turn around and say that faith alone is a “silly doctrine.” How can this be seeing that Paul said that faith is according to grace?So explain how you can confess grace alone and at the same time deny faith alone when faith is according to grace.
I am not going to put you down for your lack of logic or reason. It happens.
But it is self evident that salvation can come “by grace alone” and not “by faith alone”. One needs grace first in order to have faith, just as that same person would need grace in order to be freed to perform the works of faith. There are many things that can only come by grace.
But faith without works IS dead.
Hi CA,
Scripture is of faith but your dogmas are of the greek logic of men.Whatever is not of faith is of sin.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,06:48) It would seem that James refutes you, but your thoughts are layered based upon your presuppositions about Jesus, Peter and Paul and your belief that the teachings of Jesus were short lived. Quote CA,
First you say that all Catholics are bound to believe in grace alone and then you turn around and say that faith alone is a “silly doctrine.” How can this be seeing that Paul said that faith is according to grace?So explain how you can confess grace alone and at the same time deny faith alone when faith is according to grace.
I am not going to put you down for your lack of logic or reason. It happens.
But it is self evident that salvation can come “by grace alone” and not “by faith alone”. One needs grace first in order to have faith, just as that same person would need grace in order to be freed to perform the works of faith. There are many things that can only come by grace.
But faith without works IS dead.
Under the old covenant men were justified by faith + works. If they are justified by faith + works under the new covenant, then what is so “new” about the covenant?
Please explain the difference between the old and the new covenants.James was written while the old covenant was still in effect.
Salvation cannot come by grace alone without faith alone for grace comes through faith:
Quote For by grace you have been saved through faith; this is not from yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8-9) thinker
This is an easy error to refute. The New Covenant was instituted at the first Eucharist (e.g. “this is the new covenant in my blood” – Paul refers to this as still binding in 1 Cor 11) and culminated in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. Jesus ended the old covenant by his death (“it is finished”) and instituted the new by His resurrection.
Since you like St. Paul, go read Rom. 7: 1ff
Hi CA,.
There is no eucharist in scripture.
True communion is not with carnal men but God and His Son and those in the body of Christ.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,10:04) This is an easy error to refute. The New Covenant was instituted at the first Eucharist (e.g. “this is the new covenant in my blood” – Paul refers to this as still binding in 1 Cor 11) and culminated in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. Jesus ended the old covenant by his death (“it is finished”) and instituted the new by His resurrection. Since you like St. Paul, go read Rom. 7: 1ff
Wrong! The New covenant was not instituted UNTIL Christ completed His atoning work. The work of atonement was in two parts:1. The sacrificial death and,
2. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar.
After Jesus ascended to heaven He began the second part of the atonement (the sprinkling of the blood on the altar in the heavenly sanctuary, Hebrews chaps 8-10).
So the new covenant was not instituted until both parts of the atonement had been completed. When did this occur? According to Hebrews 9 the sign of its completion was the destruction of the temple. So we know for certain that the new covenant age was instituted when the temple was destroyed in ad70.
Here is scriptural proof that the sprinkling of the blood was part of the work of atonement.
Quote 18 And He said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the ordinances for the altar on the day when it is made, for sacrificing burnt offerings on it, and for sprinkling blood on it. 19 You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites, who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach Me to minister to Me,’ says the Lord GOD. 20 ‘You shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar, on the four corners of the ledge, and on the rim around it; thus you shall cleanse it and MAKE ATONEMENT for it. (Ezekiel 43:18-20) Moses had required long before Ezekiel that the animal be killed and its blood sprinkled on the altar. Atonement was not made UNTIL both parts were completed. Jesus had to complete both parts according to the law of Moses (Hebrews chaps 8-10).
Peter said:
Quote 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ
Peter, who you say was the first “pope” said that salvation was on the basis of the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.
He did not sprinkle His blood until He ascended to heaven. Therefore, the atonement was not completed until He finished it in heaven. The “sign” given that it was finished was the deatruction of the temple (Heb. 9). This is when the new covenant age began.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 04 2009,11:41) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,10:04) This is an easy error to refute. The New Covenant was instituted at the first Eucharist (e.g. “this is the new covenant in my blood” – Paul refers to this as still binding in 1 Cor 11) and culminated in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. Jesus ended the old covenant by his death (“it is finished”) and instituted the new by His resurrection. Since you like St. Paul, go read Rom. 7: 1ff
Wrong! The New covenant was not instituted UNTIL Christ completed His atoning work. The work of atonement was in two parts:1. The sacrificial death and,
2. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar.
After Jesus ascended to heaven He began the second part of the atonement (the sprinkling of the blood on the altar in the heavenly sanctuary, Hebrews chaps 8-10).
So the new covenant was not instituted until both parts of the atonement had been completed. When did this occur? According to Hebrews 9 the sign of its completion was the destruction of the temple. So we know for certain that the new covenant age was instituted when the temple was destroyed in ad70.
Here is scriptural proof that the sprinkling of the blood was part of the work of atonement.
Quote 18 And He said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the ordinances for the altar on the day when it is made, for sacrificing burnt offerings on it, and for sprinkling blood on it. 19 You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites, who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach Me to minister to Me,’ says the Lord GOD. 20 ‘You shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar, on the four corners of the ledge, and on the rim around it; thus you shall cleanse it and MAKE ATONEMENT for it. (Ezekiel 43:18-20) Moses had required long before Ezekiel that the animal be killed and its blood sprinkled on the altar. Atonement was not made UNTIL both parts were completed. Jesus had to complete both parts according to the law of Moses (Hebrews chaps 8-10).
Peter said:
Quote 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ
Peter, who you say was the first “pope” said that salvation was on the basis of the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.
He did not sprinkle His blood until He ascended to heaven. Therefore, the atonement was not completed until He finished it in heaven. The “sign” given that it was finished was the deatruction of the temple (Heb. 9). This is when the new covenant age began.
thinker
Yeah…we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'd like to explore the topic “What is a protestant” with others. We're seriously going off track.Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,08:24) Nick said: Quote Hi CA,
In Christ there are no protestant or catholic denominations.
Christ is not divided.What is a Protestant? Many think that one is either a Catholic or a Protestant. But this is not the case for one may be a non-Catholic and still not be a Protestant. Almost all members on this board are non-Catholic. But they are not protestants because they hold to a works-salvation program of some kind.
A Protestant is one who believes that salvation is by grace alone and that justification is by faith alone. If you add any work at all to this rule you are not a Protestant. I believe in grace alone and in faith alone. I am a Protestant in the truest and most pure sense of the term. Only the consistent Protestant has the true and unadulterated new covenant gospel.thinker
Protestants are not ideaologically different from Catholicism except they protested the indulgences of the Church which ended up causing to seperate from the Papacy which the then both campaigned against the other as being the evil one.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 04 2009,13:34) Hi CA,.
Just different brand names for the same poison?
Nick,
Why don't you just discuss the scriptures instead of trying to put a label on people? Do you even have an education?What is poisonous about the atonement being in two parts? Must men be washed by the blood of Christ or not?
thinker
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 04 2009,18:13) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,08:24) Nick said: Quote Hi CA,
In Christ there are no protestant or catholic denominations.
Christ is not divided.What is a Protestant? Many think that one is either a Catholic or a Protestant. But this is not the case for one may be a non-Catholic and still not be a Protestant. Almost all members on this board are non-Catholic. But they are not protestants because they hold to a works-salvation program of some kind.
A Protestant is one who believes that salvation is by grace alone and that justification is by faith alone. If you add any work at all to this rule you are not a Protestant. I believe in grace alone and in faith alone. I am a Protestant in the truest and most pure sense of the term. Only the consistent Protestant has the true and unadulterated new covenant gospel.thinker
Protestants are not ideaologically different from Catholicism except they protested the indulgences of the Church which ended up causing to seperate from the Papacy which the then both campaigned against the other as being the evil one.
Man are you misinformed! The Protestant Reformation was chiefly about how a man becomes just with God. The Reformers said “faith alone!”thinker
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,12:32) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 04 2009,11:41) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,10:04) This is an easy error to refute. The New Covenant was instituted at the first Eucharist (e.g. “this is the new covenant in my blood” – Paul refers to this as still binding in 1 Cor 11) and culminated in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. Jesus ended the old covenant by his death (“it is finished”) and instituted the new by His resurrection. Since you like St. Paul, go read Rom. 7: 1ff
Wrong! The New covenant was not instituted UNTIL Christ completed His atoning work. The work of atonement was in two parts:1. The sacrificial death and,
2. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar.
After Jesus ascended to heaven He began the second part of the atonement (the sprinkling of the blood on the altar in the heavenly sanctuary, Hebrews chaps 8-10).
So the new covenant was not instituted until both parts of the atonement had been completed. When did this occur? According to Hebrews 9 the sign of its completion was the destruction of the temple. So we know for certain that the new covenant age was instituted when the temple was destroyed in ad70.
Here is scriptural proof that the sprinkling of the blood was part of the work of atonement.
Quote 18 And He said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the ordinances for the altar on the day when it is made, for sacrificing burnt offerings on it, and for sprinkling blood on it. 19 You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites, who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach Me to minister to Me,’ says the Lord GOD. 20 ‘You shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar, on the four corners of the ledge, and on the rim around it; thus you shall cleanse it and MAKE ATONEMENT for it. (Ezekiel 43:18-20) Moses had required long before Ezekiel that the animal be killed and its blood sprinkled on the altar. Atonement was not made UNTIL both parts were completed. Jesus had to complete both parts according to the law of Moses (Hebrews chaps 8-10).
Peter said:
Quote 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ
Peter, who you say was the first “pope” said that salvation was on the basis of the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.
He did not sprinkle His blood until He ascended to heaven. Therefore, the atonement was not completed until He finished it in heaven. The “sign” given that it was finished was the deatruction of the temple (Heb. 9). This is when the new covenant age began.
thinker
Yeah…we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'd like to explore the topic “What is a protestant” with others. We're seriously going off track.
CA,
So let's get back on track. You said that James taught that justification was both by faith and by works. You're right! But James was written while the old covenant was still in effect. You countered saying that the new covenant was instituted at the first eucharist. I then countered saying that the new covenant could not have been instituted until Christ completed the atonement. I demonstrated that the sign that the atonement was completed was the destruction of the temple (Heb. 9). This is when the new covenant age began.So James was written early while the old covenat was still in effect. Thus he said that justification was both by faith and by works. But Paul came later preached the faith alone gospel as the old covenat age was winding down.
What say you?
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 04 2009,13:34) Hi CA,.
Just different brand names for the same poison?
Nick,
Do you pay attention when you read the scriptures? Paul said that if any man, even an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than what he preached that messenger is “ANATHEMA”. What did Paul preach? He preached FAITH ALONE!It is you and CA and all others who add to the work of Christ that have the poisonous key boards! You believe tha baptism saves just as the Catholics. So take the beam out of your own eye and just discuss the scriptures.
You delight in setting yourself up as judge over trinitarians. But it is the man with the false gospel that is explicitly called “ANATHEMA.”
thinker
To All……….Protestants are simply Daughters of the Catholic Church, as they will tell you. There core belief are the exact same with little modifications, But there is a concerted effort to try to bring back the Churches Daughters, as a Bishop has said on TV. IMO
peace and love…………………….gene
Quote (Gene @ Sep. 05 2009,03:39) To All……….Protestants are simply Daughters of the Catholic Church, as they will tell you. There core belief are the exact same with little modifications, But there is a concerted effort to try to bring back the Churches Daughters, as a Bishop has said on TV. IMO peace and love…………………….gene
You have no idea what is a true Protestant. And you have no right to speak because you also are a judaizer as CA. The charges you hurl do not apply to true Protestants.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 05 2009,03:36) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 04 2009,13:34) Hi CA,.
Just different brand names for the same poison?
Nick,
Do you pay attention when you read the scriptures? Paul said that if any man, even an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than what he preached that messenger is “ANATHEMA”. What did Paul preach? He preached FAITH ALONE!It is you and CA and all others who add to the work of Christ that have the poisonous key boards! You believe tha baptism saves just as the Catholics. So take the beam out of your own eye and just discuss the scriptures.
You delight in setting yourself up as judge over trinitarians. But it is the man with the false gospel that is explicitly called “ANATHEMA.”
thinker
Hi TT,
So why do you teach a new gospel that God is a trinity?Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 04 2009,18:13) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,08:24) Nick said: Quote Hi CA,
In Christ there are no protestant or catholic denominations.
Christ is not divided.What is a Protestant? Many think that one is either a Catholic or a Protestant. But this is not the case for one may be a non-Catholic and still not be a Protestant. Almost all members on this board are non-Catholic. But they are not protestants because they hold to a works-salvation program of some kind.
A Protestant is one who believes that salvation is by grace alone and that justification is by faith alone. If you add any work at all to this rule you are not a Protestant. I believe in grace alone and in faith alone. I am a Protestant in the truest and most pure sense of the term. Only the consistent Protestant has the true and unadulterated new covenant gospel.thinker
Protestants are not ideaologically different from Catholicism except they protested the indulgences of the Church which ended up causing to seperate from the Papacy which the then both campaigned against the other as being the evil one.
Actually Luther BELIEVED in indulgences. (Go read the 95 theses) He just objected (rightly) that they were being sold by Tetzel. The council of Trent agreed with Luther. Too bad he left.Quote Wrong! The New covenant was not instituted UNTIL Christ completed His atoning work. The work of atonement was in two parts: 1. The sacrificial death and,
2. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar.
I do want to agree to disagree about this in this thread. But I wanted to point out for clarification that Jesus sprinkled the blood on the heavenly altar. This is why at Pentecost, the priesthood of the New Covenant was in full effect. Not going to explain here. Maybe in another thread.
So in other words I believe his view is all washed up.
Hi CA,
So now Jesus is the eternal high priest and all in Christ are priests [1Peter2.9].
So where did these black garbed men who claim to have a mediation role for us spring from?Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 05 2009,07:45) Quote Wrong! The New covenant was not instituted UNTIL Christ completed His atoning work. The work of atonement was in two parts: 1. The sacrificial death and,
2. The sprinkling of the blood on the altar.
I do want to agree to disagree about this in this thread. But I wanted to point out for clarification that Jesus sprinkled the blood on the heavenly altar. This is why at Pentecost, the priesthood of the New Covenant was in full effect. Not going to explain here. Maybe in another thread.
So in other words I believe his view is all washed up.
Go back and read my original statement on the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. I said it was on the heavenly altar. Therefore, the new covenant age did not begin until Christ finished that work. This means that James' justification by faith + works principle was old covenant.
When will you get around to dealing with this?
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
