|

|
|
|
Posts: 118
Joined: July 2025
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,379
Posts56,579
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295 May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
#18611
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:36 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,051 Likes: 286
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,051 Likes: 286 |
catholicsoldier confesses: Yes the Catholic Church does believe that people can be saved without hearing the gospel, their only witness being creation itself.(based on Romans 1:19,20) I realize that I shouldn't be amazed that you and the Roman State Church contorts the inspired written Word in this way to teach something that clearly doesn't exist. So, let's do a quick "Exegesis 101" course re: Romans 1:19,20, always holding fast to the truism, "A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!"  Romans 1:16-22 (ASV) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Again, this will be extremely brief, but I belief sufficient to expose the glaring error of Rome's teaching concerning the ability of anyone to be saved by knowledge derived from natural revelation. So, 1) Paul begins by stating right off, that it is the GOSPEL that is the power of God unto salvation. For from the knowledge of Christ in the Gospel, men see their sinfulness, need of redemption and reconciliation with God and the necessity to trust in Christ by faith. (vss. 16 and 17) 2) It is the wrath of God (judgment implied) against all ungodliness which is revealed in the natural order. Notice that Paul does not even hint that salvation from sin and/or judgment is to be found in the things which are seen with the eyes. This wrath of God is manifested because of what is to be gleaned from the natural creation. But even more so, what is "natural revealed" concerning God is further manifested in them, i.e., by nature, all men know the existence of the true living God and this inner knowledge was given them by God Himself! (v. 19) 3) Paul now tells us what this knowledge consists; namely His "everlasting power and divinity". And because this knowledge is known by all men, they are without excuse. It is thus incontrovertible, that by this knowledge, all men are held responsible for their perverseness and will be held accountable. There is no defense any man can offer in his/her behalf for distorting, ignoring and/or rejecting what they inherently know by divine revelation. (v. 20) 4) Lastly, Paul brings forth the evidence against all men by which they are under judgment. They, knowing the revealed truth about God, which is clearly seen in the things that are made, refuse to act accordingly, but rather live out their lives in rebellion and rejection and substitute this truth for a lie; i.e., they entire lives are a contradiction to everything they know is true concerning their Creator and Sustainer. (cf. Eph 4:17-19 and cp. Gomer in the book of Hosea). It is absolutely irrefutable that men are under judgment, according to the testimony of Paul, due to the fact that they know God from natural revelation and reject it. There is nothing in Romans 1:19, 20 to suggest that salvation is attainable outside the Gospel and by believing upon the Redeemer Christ Who is only known in the Gospel. Now, will you please show me how this passage teaches what you and Rome believe?  In His Grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:00 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:48 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:01 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:29 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:26 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:41 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:37 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:12 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
MarieP
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:55 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:08 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:56 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:18 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:12 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:09 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:36 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:40 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:16 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:49 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:30 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:58 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:17 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:27 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:37 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:47 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:54 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:14 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Gileskirk
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:33 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Henry
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:51 AM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:36 PM
|
Re: Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:08 PM
|
Popish Heresy
|
J_Edwards
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:34 PM
|
What I don't understand is...
|
TheClingingVine
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:25 PM
|
Re: What I don't understand is...
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:50 PM
|
Ask and ye shall receive....
|
TheClingingVine
|
Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:33 PM
|
Re: Ask and ye shall receive....
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:12 AM
|
No, you're safe.
|
TheClingingVine
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:41 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:15 AM
|
Yes, that's certainly what I always understood...
|
TheClingingVine
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:06 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Pilgrim
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:36 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:48 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:08 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:42 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Henry
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:09 PM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Gileskirk
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:03 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Henry
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:02 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:59 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:53 AM
|
Re: No, you're safe.
|
CovenantInBlood
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:05 AM
|
Re: What I don't understand is...
|
Anonymous
|
Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:49 PM
|
Still Waiting.........
|
J_Edwards
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:07 PM
|
Re: Still Waiting.........
|
Gileskirk
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:32 AM
|
Re: Still Waiting.........
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:08 AM
|
Yet Another Delay Tactic....
|
J_Edwards
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:16 AM
|
Re: Yet Another Delay Tactic....
|
neicey
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:16 PM
|
Re: Yet Another Delay Tactic....
|
J_Edwards
|
Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:07 PM
|
|
|
|
1 members (Pilgrim),
86
guests, and
70
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|