Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,862
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,712
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,295
Tom 3,302
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 22
Pilgrim 18
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Law and Grace
by Pilgrim. Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:44 PM
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#17427 - Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:06 PM Our Justification  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Hi
If you are like me you have run across many Christians that are ignorant of many of the essential doctrines of the Church. In fact in some cases, I have found that many believe the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics are trivial at best and only seek to divide Christians.
I must admit that this perplexes me, so much so that I have written something I am thinking of giving to the next person who espouses such a view to me. However, before I do so, I have a feeling that if I do, I am going to get an earful. Although I don’t like it whenever people are mad at me, I never the less feel worse by remaining silent in cases like that.
However, I thought before I give this article I thought in order to avoid unnecessary criticism, I would first ask the Highway participants to critique it for me.


(Rough Draft)Our Justification


In this day and age in the Protestant Church, many who claim to be Protestant are ignorant of one of the core doctrines of which the Protestant Reformation was fought on.
What I am referring to is the issue of Justification, in particular the biblical doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’. At this point I thought I would include a brief explanation from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF), to explain what ‘imputed righteousness’ is.
LBCF:
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
In order to appreciate the significance of this part of the LBCF, I thought I would also provide something written on it by Samuel Waldron.
Paragraph 1 of the Confession enunciates the classic Protestant distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ. This distinction has been popularly understood to entail a division of Christ's work into two divisions or parts. The perfect life of obedience to the law of God up to, but not including the cross, has been viewed as Christ's active obedience. Such an understanding, however, has no biblical support. The active and passive obedience of Christ are not two separate parts of Christ's work, but his one work looked at in two ways. Philippians 2:8, for instance, describes Christ as "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross'. In many places the cross is viewed as the culminating activity in Christ's obedience to the Father's will (John 14:31; 15:10; Rom. 5:17-19; Heb. 5:8-9; 10:5-10).
If there is no division of Christ's obedience into two separate parts in the Bible, why is this distinction necessary? The answer is that we had a twofold need if we were to inherit eternal life. We needed, firstly, the forgiveness of the guilt of our sins. This is provided by Christ's passive obedience, his suffering the penalty of the law. Secondly, we needed the gift of a positive righteousness. This is provided by Christ's active obedience, his obedience to the precepts of God's law and all the other dimensions of the preceptive will of the Father for him.

Why is this doctrine so important and what in particular am I so concerned about?
What I am so concerned about is the fact that today, many Christians talk as though they believe that the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants are trivial at best. What they believe to be more important is whether or not people believe in Jesus Christ. I have also heard it said by some that they believe what is important to them is not whether or not someone understands doctrine itself, but whether or not they actually live out their faith or not.
On the surface there is some good logic in this, for it I indeed true that unless one lives out what they believe, their doctrine is useless. However, what people who trivialize the doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ fail to realize, is the fact that incorrect doctrine brings incorrect belief no matter how sincere the person is. This of course means that they can’t live out what the Bible actually teaches.
One of the reasons I attribute the ignorance of people is the fact that in many cases the doctrines of the Church (such as imputed righteousness) are not/ or not adequately taught in the Church.
Another aspect that I believe is important to mention is the fact that the doctrines of the Church are not just meant for the educated (such as pastors and teachers) in the Church. They are meant for every single member of the body of Christ. That doesn’t mean that every person is going to understand these doctrines to the same degree, but they should seek to understand at least the basics of the doctrines of the Church.
It also doesn’t necessary mean that all people are going to know all the theological terms that are used for biblical doctrines, but they should at least understand the truth that these biblical doctrines convey. A side note to this is the fact that as I talk to some Christians they are intimidated by words such as “doctrine” (teaching) and “theology” (the study of God). In fact so much so that when they are used, they don’t even want to discuss it any more. Some that do this have said that people that use these terms do so because they want to show how superior their knowledge is over others.
While I believe that in some cases this may be true, I also believe by and large it is just a cop out for those who are just too lazy to learn the truths behind what these words convey. If they were genuinely interested in knowing, they would either ask what these terms mean, or find out for themselves. Something by the way, that for anyone interested, is not hard to find out. I fear also that it may also be a symptom of a far greater problem. That problem is that they may not even be saved.
I thought I would end this article with a Latin saying that was common among the Protestant Reformers.
“The doctrine of justification is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. “ This means: the article on which the Church stands or falls.
If the Reformers were correct about this, can we afford to trivialize the issue?

#17428 - Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:17 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 151
neicey Offline
Enthusiast
neicey  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 151
Maryland
Hey Tom <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> I thought it was gooooood you can teach me anytime <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Can't help you with anything else, maybe you could post another sometime <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

#17429 - Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:07 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: neicey]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Neicey

Thanks for the feed back <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" />

I do have a question for you that I think you can answer.
Do you believe the article needs defining a little more clearly what Roman Catholicism teaches in contrast to the Protestant view?
If so, I am not sure how I can do so without making it longer than many people are willing to read.
Any thoughts?

Tom

#17430 - Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:09 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 151
neicey Offline
Enthusiast
neicey  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 151
Maryland
Hi Tom, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />
You picked out what I had to go back and look for and read again.( what R.C. teaches),I need seperation, to easily read one view from another. Sometimes a chart helps,keeping your words in the chart to 30 seconds reading time is about all the attention most people will give.
I guess we have short attention spans <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

Hope that helped, Tom what ever you do to it change or not,it's well worth reading again. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

#17431 - Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Tom,

I think your article is pretty good. I would enjoy hearing some of the reactions you receive once you start handing it out.


Quote
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.


I think the the "infusing righteousness" idea is from the Catholic side of things (if I remember correctly). It might be something that Protestants aren't too familiar with. In fact, I asked a question about this very thing a while back, and I've already forgotten exactly what it entails. I know you don't want to make your article too long, but you may want to consider explaining that idea a little better for the benefit of those who aren't familiar with it.

Quote

Why is this doctrine so important and what in particular am I so concerned about?
What I am so concerned about is the fact that today, many Christians talk as though they believe that the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants are trivial at best. What they believe to be more important is whether or not people believe in Jesus Christ. I have also heard it said by some that they believe what is important to them is not whether or not someone understands doctrine itself, but whether or not they actually live out their faith or not.
On the surface there is some good logic in this, for it I indeed true that unless one lives out what they believe, their doctrine is useless. However, what people who trivialize the doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ fail to realize, is the fact that incorrect doctrine brings incorrect belief no matter how sincere the person is. This of course means that they can’t live out what the Bible actually teaches.


I really like this part. It reminds of when Josiah found the books of the law and after reading them realized how much the nation was sinning. Before he read the "correct doctrine" he had no idea that they were disobeying God even though they thought they were obeying him.

John

Last edited by john; Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:54 PM.
#17432 - Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:31 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: john]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
John


Thanks for the input; I agree with you that I may need to clarify what "infused righteousness" is.
What I have in mind is something neicey said: “Sometimes a chart helps, keeping your words in the chart to 30 seconds reading time is about all the attention most people will give.”

If you know of one, or have any ideas of what I should include in it, it would be appreciated. That of course is extended to anyone reading this thread.

Tom

#17433 - Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:09 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Quote
Tom said:

If you know of one, or have any ideas of what I should include in it, it would be appreciated. That of course is extended to anyone reading this thread.

Tom


Tom,

Here is the the thread I mentioned previously. I'm not sure if it will be helpful or not.
http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1

Since one of your objectives is to to counteract the idea that
"the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics are trivial at best and only seek to divide Christians," I would imagine that you will be giving this to many Protestants. I suspect most Protestants (me being one) aren't too familiar with Catholic doctrine. If you change your article, I would be interested in reading what you added so I can learn a little more too.

John

#17434 - Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:51 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: john]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
John

I have decided that I will not change much of what I wrote. However, I will add the following in hopes of clearing up what infused righteousness and imputed righteousness are.

Imputed Righteousness

Imputed righteousness is the state of justification in which one who has trusted Christ as Lord and Savior rests. It is IMPUTED, meaning that the righteousness does not come from within the person justified. It is an ALIEN righteousness that comes from someone else, from without (God). That our righteousness is imputed to us is very good news because if it were not we could not be saved. We are sinners, and as such we could never attain the holiness that is required for salvation. The only hope for sinners is to be clothed with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. Praise God, we can do that.
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; [KJV]

Infused Righteousness

The doctrine of ‘infused righteousness” teaches that God justifies in accord with a righteousness merited by Christ into the believer and maintained by good works. This doctrine, especially prominent in the Roman Catholic Church, is anti-Scriptural, but accords with its doctrine of justification by works. It posits the believer receives both imputed and infused righteousness, the latter becoming his inherent righteousness and one is justified on the basis of what he personally does with it.

If you see a problem with this, or have a better suggestion, please feel free to say so.

Tom

#17435 - Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:25 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Quote
Tom said:
John

I have decided that I will not change much of what I wrote. However, I will add the following in hopes of clearing up what infused righteousness and imputed righteousness are.

..snip..

If you see a problem with this, or have a better suggestion, please feel free to say so.

Tom


Hi Tom,

I can't see a problem with what you wrote, but I'm not an expert. I think it sounds good. It helped me get a better grasp on infused righteousness. I think the difference between the doctrine of infused righteousness and imputed righteousness is fairly clear.

John

#17436 - Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:46 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 164
catholicsoldier Offline
Member
catholicsoldier  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 164
Fort Bragg, NC
Perhaps you would like to hear the reaction of a Roman Catholic?

I agree with many here who think it too lengthy and scholarly for laypersons to understand. I disagree with your statement that such refinements of doctrine are not just for theologians and pastors, but for every believer. I am an educated man, and I myself am struggling to understand just what is in dispute here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

I have seen that the emotionals aspects of the rift between Catholics and Protestants have been brought about, not by major doctrinal differences, but by intolerant statements made on both sides.

If I may offer a couple of examples: Most don't realize that most of the hostility toward Catholics today had been generated by the works of E.G. White, a founder and prophetess in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Such books as The Great Controversy have depicted Roman Catholicism as "the whore of Babylon" and the pope as "the antichrist." Any serious Bible scholar who has researched scriptures concerning the antichrist rejects this notion out of hand. The church continues to promote these books to mainline protestantism while attempting to hide their origin, for indeed the Seventh Day Adventist Church has a long history of heretical teachings.

On the other side the Roman Catholic Church produces such divisive works as Vatican II, that declares "anethema" anyone who preaches "sola fide" or "salvation by faith alone." This has been a horrible affront to Christian unity and has caused a lot of misunderstanding and hurt between us. In fact, a close examination will reveal only minute differences between our doctrines about the role of works in our salvation. (I would at some point like to discuss this in more detail) You should understand that many Catholic, clergy and lay, strongly disagreed with the language of Vatican II, but as can often happen, we feel that we've been hijacked by the hardliners of our faith.

Such strife may cause us to forget that we both support the sanctity of life, and have taken the gospel of Christ to the far reaches of the world, with hospitals, schools, libraries, and many more of the blessings we benefit from as a result of our faith. We both have a common love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and a common hope for our redemption from this corrupt world.

I would say that Satan rejoices to see the divisions that cause bitterness and strife between us. The importance of correct doctrine not to be disputed, I can assure you that I feel just as certain about the accuracy of Catholic teachings as you feel about Reformation teachings. Seeing as neither will budge, it behooves us to focus instead on our common bond in Christ Jesus.

You have covered much more material than I can possibly respond to in one post. Can I look forward to the opportunity to address these points in more detail?

Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.eph 6:24

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

#17437 - Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:51 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: catholicsoldier]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Perhaps this will clarify it a little more for you: http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...mp;o=&vc=1.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#17438 - Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:28 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: catholicsoldier]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Hi CatholicSoldier,

I enjoy your posts alot and usually find a lot in common with what you say, but I have a few issues with this one.

Quote
catholicsoldier said:
Perhaps you would like to hear the reaction of a Roman Catholic?

I agree with many here who think it too lengthy and scholarly for laypersons to understand. I disagree with your statement that such refinements of doctrine are not just for theologians and pastors, but for every believer. I am an educated man, and I myself am struggling to understand just what is in dispute here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />


I agree that some of the issues here can be difficult to understand (see my other posts in this thread), but just because something is difficult to understand, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't try to understand it. Especially as Christians, wouldn't you agree that we should always strive to refine our understanding of Scripture. The Bible is the very Word of God. For example, the questions I had about infused/imputed righteousness. Maybe at first glance, it seems trivial, but the difference between the two is actually vast.

Quote
I have seen that the emotionals aspects of the rift between Catholics and Protestants have been brought about, not by major doctrinal differences, but by intolerant statements made on both sides.


I would agree that many aspects of the rift between Catholics and Protestants are brought about by intolerance and not doctrinal differences. One of the reasons Tom wrote that article was to help people understand the doctrinal differences. If most Christians don't understand the doctrinal differences between the two sides and think they are trivial, then most likely many of the rifts must not be because of doctrinal issues. But, that does not mean that the rifts that are based on doctrinal issues are not important. In fact, these rifts are the truly important ones. I would imagine that the differences most of the people on this board have with Catholics are doctrinal and not because of intolerant statements. I personally disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine, and yet many of my close friends are Catholic. Even though I only know you through this board, I consider you a friend too. And although on those doctrinal issues that I believe Catholics are in error about I would argue until I'm blue in the face, I would be quick to acknowledge the doctrinal errors where we agree.

Quote
If I may offer a couple of examples: Most don't realize that most of the hostility toward Catholics today had been generated by the works of E.G. White, a founder and prophetess in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Such books as The Great Controversy have depicted Roman Catholicism as "the whore of Babylon" and the pope as "the antichrist." Any serious Bible scholar who has researched scriptures concerning the antichrist rejects this notion out of hand. The church continues to promote these books to mainline protestantism while attempting to hide their origin, for indeed the Seventh Day Adventist Church has a long history of heretical teachings.


I am not familiar with E.G. White or this book. But, I've never heard of it promoted in any protestant church I have attended. I think you've been a bit hasty in painting a picture of all Protestant churches. Also, I'm not sure of the timeline of this E.G. White book, but I'm fairly certain if you go back and read some of the writings of the Reformers, you'll find some very vitriolic writing against the Catholic church. I don't know if it's such a new phenomenon. I personally do not believe the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ, but I don't think it's accurate to say that all serious Bible scholars don't believe this. I'm fairly sure I've read some writings of some very well known Bible scholars who believed this (I'll have to confirm this but it's my recollection). It's amazing when reading the writing of many of the giants of Christian literature how they can be so correct in the majority of their theology and then on some issues just go off the deep end. It's a reflection of the corruption of sin that remains in all Christians I suppose.

Quote
On the other side the Roman Catholic Church produces such divisive works as Vatican II, that declares "anethema" anyone who preaches "sola fide" or "salvation by faith alone." This has been a horrible affront to Christian unity and has caused a lot of misunderstanding and hurt between us. In fact, a close examination will reveal only minute differences between our doctrines about the role of works in our salvation. (I would at some point like to discuss this in more detail) You should understand that many Catholic, clergy and lay, strongly disagreed with the language of Vatican II, but as can often happen, we feel that we've been hijacked by the hardliners of our faith.


Again, what at first glance may seem a minute difference could be a vast ocean. It's easy to make general observations like this, but until we start to discuss specific points of doctrine, it's hard to say whether the difference is minute or not.

Quote
Such strife may cause us to forget that we both support the sanctity of life, and have taken the gospel of Christ to the far reaches of the world, with hospitals, schools, libraries, and many more of the blessings we benefit from as a result of our faith. We both have a common love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and a common hope for our redemption from this corrupt world.


I would agree that we should celebrate what we have in common. For things like this, I am thankful for all my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

Quote
I would say that Satan rejoices to see the divisions that cause bitterness and strife between us. The importance of correct doctrine not to be disputed, I can assure you that I feel just as certain about the accuracy of Catholic teachings as you feel about Reformation teachings. Seeing as neither will budge, it behooves us to focus instead on our common bond in Christ Jesus.


The problem I see here is that we shouldn't base what is correct doctrine on how strongly we feel about it being correct. In that case, for example, a Muslim would have just as strong an argument or stronger that the Koran is correct. If you look at most of the writing of Paul, he preached a lot about Christian harmony and love, and yet at the same time, when even the smallest hints of error crept him he was quick to expose it (often in very strong language). I'm sure many of those people he took to task over errors in doctrine felt very strongly that they were correct.

Quote
You have covered much more material than I can possibly respond to in one post. Can I look forward to the opportunity to address these points in more detail?


Not addressed to me in particular, but I hope to discuss more with you.

John

#17439 - Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 AM Re: Our Justification [Re: john]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 164
catholicsoldier Offline
Member
catholicsoldier  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 164
Fort Bragg, NC
John

I can see that you put a lot of time, thought, and care in your response, and I appreciate it greatly.

Concerning my referrences to anti Catholic writers, I don't want to be guilty of flinging out unsubstantiated claims. Let me clarify what I said about E.G. White, because her heretical works are something that all Christians should be aware of, being that the Adventist Church to date works hard to continue to promote them.

Ellen Gould White came on the scene after the raptures predicted by William Miller failed to occur. She was one of many who claimed to have visions and special revelation, and gaining preeminence among them to become a leader and a known prophetess. Some of the works you may be familiar with is The Great Controversy and The Desire Of The Ages. The Great Controversy is often marketed as America In Prophesy. These books are published and put into the hands of non-Adventists, while attempting to conceal its real source.

These books are filled with White's version of end time events. Her eschatology is focused on Rome being the New Babylon and the Pope being the antichrist. The main weapon of the the Church, and indeed, the mark of the beast, in her opinion, is the institution of Sunday worship which she says most protestant denominations are unduly influenced by unaware.

In fact she wrote over 50 works that cover every detail of religious life and her works fill the libraries of every Adventist Church. They are considered very close to the Bible itself in inerrency.

Though E.G. White was the first to publish seriously anti-Catholic books, protestants are also greatly influenced by Loraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism. If you never read this book or heard of it, you can be certain that any anti Catholic books you have read contain referrences to this book. It is an unabashed hatchet job, that I'm sure you understand as an educated man, can be written about any person or organization, to make them seem suspicious and shady. The book is not based on facts and uses very few genuine Catholic sources, but instead is a misrepresentation of the truth using every witness or work that paint the Catholic Church in a negative light.

Concerning the antichrist, here is what we know based on an honest look at scriptures. He would likely be Jewish and rise out of the tribe of Dan. He would have strong appeal to Jews and would superimpose himself on their expectations of a coming messiah. (They wouldn't even consider a catholic) The temple of God he sits in cannot be the Vatican, but rather temple prophesied to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. The antichrist will be a counterfeit Christ and will probably have many similarities to the life of Christ, to include a claim to virgin birth and a resurrection from death. And just as surely as there is a holy Trinity, the antichrist will constitute a member of the unholy trinity.

In fact every work that portrays the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon is way off base. They presuppose that end time events will center on Rome, when in fact all of scriptural prophesy make it clear that Israel will be the epicenter, all other nations playing trivial roles. The problem here is the practice of interpreting scripture according to hateful sentiment instead of the righteous practice of "rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />

My hope is that the members here will not, in preexisting antisentiment of the Catholic Church, haste to be duped by those authors with sinister agenda whose truth twisting tactics closely mimic those of Satan himself.

Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. Eph 6:24

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

#17440 - Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:23 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: catholicsoldier]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
I don't think those who identify Rome as the "Whore of Babylon" are necessarily way off base. The Westminster divines, serious biblical scholars in their own right, included in the Confession in ch. 26.5 a passage that identified the Pope as the Antichrist. (Most modern churches holding the WCF as their secondary standards omit this portion.) They are far from alone among the men of the Reformation.

Here is an article on The Highway that identifies the papal office as the embodiment of Antichrist: "The Antichrist Unveiled."


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#17441 - Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:36 PM Re: Our Justification [Re: catholicsoldier]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,303
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Catholic Soldier


There is no doubt that much has been written that is indeed hateful about the Roman Catholic Church. Some of this is based on fact and some not.
However, if you had read my post carefully you would have noticed that I was only dealing with one particular issue, namely imputed righteousness vs. infused righteousness.

These particular doctrines are important enough, before even bringing other doctrines into the mess. I could very well have used the Protestant doctrine of 'sola scriptura' for my discussion. But by dealing with just one important matter, I was hoping to show the reader that the gulf between Roman Catholics & Protestant is quite large.

I do not wish to get into the issue of whether or not the pope is the anti-Christ, that is a non issue with me.

As john had said it doesn't mean that matters such as imputed vs. infused righteousness are going to be easy to understand. For indeed even I have a hard time with the issues in question. But never the less the issue is important and is bearing on the salvation of the individual.
Not necessarily whether they know how to describe the differences, but whether or not they have 'imputed righteousness' or not.
I also covered this area in my original post when I said: "One of the reasons I attribute the ignorance of people is the fact that in many cases the doctrines of the Church (such as imputed righteousness) are not/ or not adequately taught in the Church."

Lest you think that this matter is trivial and shouldn't be a matter that divides. I ask you carefully to study the two doctrines side by side, then come back and tell me what your findings are (be specific). For I believe that the gulf between the two are far apart.

On the matter of causing divisions between Christians, I want to quote Romans 16:17.

"17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Please notice that it is a serious matter to cause divisions and offences. However it also adds "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned".
Obviously these people had already been taught "doctrine". So Paul was warning people to mark them that cause division contrary to that doctrine.
To put that into the equation of 'imputed righteousness' vs. 'infused righteousness', we should see that both can not be correct at the same time.
So you being a Roman Catholic after you have thoroughly studied the matter still believe in 'infused righteousness'. Then you have every right to "mark" us as Protestants and avoid us, for we preach a different "gospel" than you.

Tom


Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 17 guests, and 103 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
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
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
651,697 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.054s Queries: 15 (0.007s) Memory: 2.6949 MB (Peak: 3.0082 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-21 15:45:00 UTC