Justification by Faith Alone

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Can understand this would be the case, if one were to go down into the original tongues, after all the first and foremost problem often the denial of clear scripture in the native tongue. One can be skeptical of those basing doctrines on their private word studies, though, which you see a lot of. I've actually avoided this practice on purpose, reserve such things only for when there may be some issue with the English that perhaps the Hebrew or Greek could shed some light on, but, even then, preferring to look at comparative translations. Many seminarians, including great preachers and teachers, know they aren't scholars of the original tongues, therefore use them sparingly. (I've seen an awful lot of people claiming a word means thus and such in the original tongues, investigate only to find there is either no such minor definition or nothing in the context to warrant a minor definition twist and altered scripture meaning: hence, people trying to use the original tongues to "prove" a private interpretation not really there, upon close scrutiny.) Personally, the concept I can come up with a better translation from dictionaries, that a committee of top scholars failed to find, doesn't even make sense.

What it is about web forums is more egregious than this, what I see. I see the deity of the Lord Jesus denied or impugned, grace by faith denied or impugned, the same with the rapture, many people of doubt, not faith, some outlandish, very basic eschatology that makes zero sense and conforms to nothing in scripture: people here are arguing all day long over a number of settled, baby's milk issues clear in scripture, butchering the very basics of the Christian faith. Just where is the Holy Spirit and His truth in such? So, what I'm saying is that I would expect to have discourse with somebody who has the basics down, anyway, on a purportedly Christian theology website, find it even a real bore, these arguments over Sunday school level theology. I have no desire to argue over who the Lord Jesus is, or what grace and salvation are. Does that make sense? What sort of discussion can you have with somebody who insists the basic gospel is wrong? And I never hear anybody, in a real church congregation, claiming things you read here or having these never ending arguments. I never see in real life, period, people arguing and repeating themselves for fifty pages, in any walk of life. Somebody who simply repeats the same thing, over and over, is even considered mentally ill, in the real world, somebody who makes a habit of gratuitously picking fights considered sociopathic and universally avoided. You even look at some of the shameful thread titles, and it's not of Christ, find myself asking, "Who are these people?" Anyway, a lot of days it's, "Move along. Nothing to see here." Unless you're a glutton for punishment and like arguing with straw men, but even that behavior sort of gets back to the sociopathy of a troll, does it not?

1 Timothy 6

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


Paul had the same problem. He would try to ground a church in the Gospel only to come back later and find out that the Judaizers had infiltrared the church with their law doctrine.

The Corinthians were probably the worst bunch of people that Paul had ever encountered. At one time he even threatened to beat them with a stick, 1 Corinthians 4:21.

Yet, he continued to teach and preach the Gospel to who ever would listen. If you have the truth you have an obligation to teach it to others, regardless of the persecution that will follow.
 

lukecash12

New member
Can understand this would be the case, if one were to go down into the original tongues, after all the first and foremost problem often the denial of clear scripture in the native tongue. One can be skeptical of those basing doctrines on their private word studies, though, which you see a lot of. I've actually avoided this practice on purpose, reserve such things only for when there may be some issue with the English that perhaps the Hebrew or Greek could shed some light on, but, even then, preferring to look at comparative translations. Many seminarians, including great preachers and teachers, know they aren't scholars of the original tongues, therefore use them sparingly. (I've seen an awful lot of people claiming a word means thus and such in the original tongues, investigate only to find there is either no such minor definition or nothing in the context to warrant a minor definition twist and altered scripture meaning: hence, people trying to use the original tongues to "prove" a private interpretation not really there, upon close scrutiny.) Personally, the concept I can come up with a better translation from dictionaries, that a committee of top scholars failed to find, doesn't even make sense.

Translations actually have a different use than telling theologians what exactly to think in order to form serious doctrines, doctrines that make up whole denominations. What a translation is there for is for the average Christian's benefit, for them to enjoy God's Word and have an adequate understanding of the essentials. Even then, people easily misunderstand the essentials.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about private linguistic ideas, and have always been careful to follow two of the most updated and critical sources for Koine Greek (and classical Greek in the case of the latter), Thayer and Vine's Expository and Liddel and Scott's. The reason it's crucial to go back to the original languages when trying to take a more disciplined look at what makes up church doctrines, is that there are many compound words in ancient languages and relevant philosophy behind their terms and the way they spoke. This is most important because in terms of grammar and vocabulary, our translations may basically cover what's going on but give us the wrong idea about connotations.

But I'm digressing a bit, from my first intended point that it is important to compare what you see in your lexicon with information in a concordance showing the different ways that the word has been translated and where. In spite of the dust it's collected over all this time, Strong's Concordance is still perfectly suitable towards this end as it may not have the best in terms of vocabulary explanations, but it is quite an exhaustive concordance, showing everywhere that something is in the text and all of the different ways it has been translated in the AV.

The scholars who do this work can't be thanked enough, and the leading minds of Christian orthodoxy have always held a grave responsibility to carefully deliberate on this information they're given. Why is this so important? You obviously know and are noting the harm that misinformation can do to people learning about Christianity.

What it is about web forums is more egregious than this, what I see. I see the deity of the Lord Jesus denied or impugned, grace by faith denied or impugned, the same with the rapture, many people of doubt, not faith, some outlandish, very basic eschatology that makes zero sense and conforms to nothing in scripture: people here are arguing all day long over a number of settled, baby's milk issues clear in scripture, butchering the very basics of the Christian faith.

This is because they cherry pick single verses and spew them at each other ad nauseum.

Here's a great article on just what it takes to start speaking authoritatively on the scriptures: http://www.bible-researcher.com/bible-study1.html

There is also great pleasure to be had in learning linguistics. Understanding more of these details of scripture will also bring people closer to God, their fascination with it another expression of love. The person who has truly committed to this kind of study would be rare if they couldn't agree with you on the milk.

Those first four ecumenical creeds are so biblical that they have enormous use down to this day. That so many people online think they know so much, yet they clam up at the sight of any language discussion or taking whole passages in context, displays a nature which I feel is disingenuous.

Just where is the Holy Spirit and His truth in such? So, what I'm saying is that I would expect to have discourse with somebody who has the basics down, anyway, on a purportedly Christian theology website, find it even a real bore, these arguments over Sunday school level theology. I have no desire to argue over who the Lord Jesus is, or what grace and salvation are. Does that make sense? What sort of discussion can you have with somebody who insists the basic gospel is wrong? And I never hear anybody, in a real church congregation, claiming things you read here or having these never ending arguments. I never see in real life, period, people arguing and repeating themselves for fifty pages, in any walk of life. Somebody who simply repeats the same thing, over and over, is even considered mentally ill, in the real world, somebody who makes a habit of gratuitously picking fights considered sociopathic and universally avoided.

This isn't your typical public setting, though. Which is why there are a plethora of threads where people pick groups of single verses, thinking that the quotations will speak for themselves, and that simply showing what they've read will display their "great" discernment. Well, I'm sorry to tell them but there's been a long, long history of people who have made it their work in life to carefully educate themselves and edify others on this, and there has been substantial level of agreement on the essentials since apostolic times.

Every orthodox Christian, RCC, Coptic, or otherwise, understands that God is triune, that Jesus is the fully man and fully divine, that the Lord atoned for our sins on the day He gave His penultimate expression of yom kippur, that it is through the atonement of the Son that we have been saved, and whatever model is agreed to, penance or no penance, etc., it is understood that salvation is God's gift and any good we do is also a gift. Any properly taught Molinist or Lutheran would agree to that last statement.

It is distressful that any person claiming to be a Christian would not be able to agree with the first four creeds. This is why there must always be Christians who have been gifted with the opportunity and capacity to learn such technical issues, willing to do so, as these clear supports for the truth of the Gospel have always been agreed to and need to be upheld anew every generation. We must strive to be the Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, or Augustine of today if we can, because there is a grave responsibility laid upon the Bride of Christ.

You even look at some of the shameful thread titles, and it's not of Christ, find myself asking, "Who are these people?" Anyway, a lot of days it's, "Move along. Nothing to see here." Unless you're a glutton for punishment and like arguing with straw men, but even that behavior sort of gets back to the sociopathy of a troll, does it not?

What's even more alarming at times is people ignorantly spewing anathema at one another. You have to wonder if they are doing this in their every day lives, not fully considering the gravity of their claims and committing to the requisite learning in order to make such a grave proclamation. The proclamation of anathema is supposed to be one of concern and made in sensitivity to the Great Commission. In fact, the last Great Awakening in America (there were huge revivals in the 19th century), was compelled by people who preached on the seriousness of sin, and what it meant to reject God, how generous, glorious, and righteously wroth He is.

1 Timothy 6

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

This is made abundantly clear when you examine the fruits and apparent countenance of anyone disputing over doctrinal issues, or proclaiming anathema on someone. Are they comporting themselves in an empathetic manner? Do they really have loving ends in mind? Are they achieving those ends?

As always, I like to end with devotional prayer:

[SIZE=+3]G[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]LORIA[/SIZE] in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.
LAUDAMUS te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus te, gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam, Domine Deus, Rex caelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens.
DOMINE Fili unigenite, Iesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram. Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis.
QUONIAM tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dominus, tu solus Altissimus, Iesu Christe, *** Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.

[SIZE=+3]G[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]LORY[/SIZE] to God in the highest, and peace on earth to men of good will.
WE praise Thee, we bless Thee, we adore Thee, we glorify Thee, we give Thee thanks for Thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.
O Lord Jesus Christ, only begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, Thou who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; Thou who takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou who sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
FOR Thou alone art the Holy One, Thou alone art the Lord, Thou alone art the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Translations actually have a different use than telling theologians what exactly to think in order to form serious doctrines, doctrines that make up whole denominations. What a translation is there for is for the average Christian's benefit, for them to enjoy God's Word and have an adequate understanding of the essentials. Even then, people easily misunderstand the essentials.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about private linguistic ideas, and have always been careful to follow two of the most updated and critical sources for Koine Greek (and classical Greek in the case of the latter), Thayer and Vine's Expository and Liddel and Scott's. The reason it's crucial to go back to the original languages when trying to take a more disciplined look at what makes up church doctrines, is that there are many compound words in ancient languages and relevant philosophy behind their terms and the way they spoke. This is most important because in terms of grammar and vocabulary, our translations may basically cover what's going on but give us the wrong idea about connotations.

But I'm digressing a bit, from my first intended point that it is important to compare what you see in your lexicon with information in a concordance showing the different ways that the word has been translated and where. In spite of the dust it's collected over all this time, Strong's Concordance is still perfectly suitable towards this end as it may not have the best in terms of vocabulary explanations, but it is quite an exhaustive concordance, showing everywhere that something is in the text and all of the different ways it has been translated in the AV.

The scholars who do this work can't be thanked enough, and the leading minds of Christian orthodoxy have always held a grave responsibility to carefully deliberate on this information they're given. Why is this so important? You obviously know and are noting the harm that misinformation can do to people learning about Christianity.



This is because they cherry pick single verses and spew them at each other ad nauseum.

Here's a great article on just what it takes to start speaking authoritatively on the scriptures: http://www.bible-researcher.com/bible-study1.html

There is also great pleasure to be had in learning linguistics. Understanding more of these details of scripture will also bring people closer to God, their fascination with it another expression of love. The person who has truly committed to this kind of study would be rare if they couldn't agree with you on the milk.

Those first four ecumenical creeds are so biblical that they have enormous use down to this day. That so many people online think they know so much, yet they clam up at the sight of any language discussion or taking whole passages in context, displays a nature which I feel is disingenuous.



This isn't your typical public setting, though. Which is why there are a plethora of threads where people pick groups of single verses, thinking that the quotations will speak for themselves, and that simply showing what they've read will display their "great" discernment. Well, I'm sorry to tell them but there's been a long, long history of people who have made it their work in life to carefully educate themselves and edify others on this, and there has been substantial level of agreement on the essentials since apostolic times.

Every orthodox Christian, RCC, Coptic, or otherwise, understands that God is triune, that Jesus is the fully man and fully divine, that the Lord atoned for our sins on the day He gave His penultimate expression of yom kippur, that it is through the atonement of the Son that we have been saved, and whatever model is agreed to, penance or no penance, etc., it is understood that salvation is God's gift and any good we do is also a gift. Any properly taught Molinist or Lutheran would agree to that last statement.

It is distressful that any person claiming to be a Christian would not be able to agree with the first four creeds. This is why there must always be Christians who have been gifted with the opportunity and capacity to learn such technical issues, willing to do so, as these clear supports for the truth of the Gospel have always been agreed to and need to be upheld anew every generation. We must strive to be the Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, or Augustine of today if we can, because there is a grave responsibility laid upon the Bride of Christ.



What's even more alarming at times is people ignorantly spewing anathema at one another. You have to wonder if they are doing this in their every day lives, not fully considering the gravity of their claims and committing to the requisite learning in order to make such a grave proclamation. The proclamation of anathema is supposed to be one of concern and made in sensitivity to the Great Commission. In fact, the last Great Awakening in America (there were huge revivals in the 19th century), was compelled by people who preached on the seriousness of sin, and what it meant to reject God, how generous, glorious, and righteously wroth He is.



This is made abundantly clear when you examine the fruits and apparent countenance of anyone disputing over doctrinal issues, or proclaiming anathema on someone. Are they comporting themselves in an empathetic manner? Do they really have loving ends in mind? Are they achieving those ends?

As always, I like to end with devotional prayer:

[SIZE=+3]G[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]LORIA[/SIZE] in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.
LAUDAMUS te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus te, gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam, Domine Deus, Rex caelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens.
DOMINE Fili unigenite, Iesu Christe, Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram. Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis.
QUONIAM tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dominus, tu solus Altissimus, Iesu Christe, *** Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.

[SIZE=+3]G[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]LORY[/SIZE] to God in the highest, and peace on earth to men of good will.
WE praise Thee, we bless Thee, we adore Thee, we glorify Thee, we give Thee thanks for Thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.
O Lord Jesus Christ, only begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, Thou who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; Thou who takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou who sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
FOR Thou alone art the Holy One, Thou alone art the Lord, Thou alone art the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.


What Christian other are you?

You appear to be Catholic to me.
 

lukecash12

New member
What Christian other are you?

You appear to be Catholic to me.

I'm a Freewill Baptist. See F. Leroy Forline's Classical Arminianism and Quest for Truth, or Robert Piccirilli's Grace, Faith, and Free Will for examples of what Free Will Baptists believe.

If you're referring to my frequent Latin references, I can see why you might have made the assumption. Most of the Christian literature was written in Latin, thus it is a very useful language. In some ways, it can be easier to express things about God in Latin, because the language was dominated for so long by Christian thought.

It's funny to me that so many Protestants get irritable when I quote Latin prayers, considering that the people who started the Reformation were plenty comfortable writing in Latin.
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
I'm a Freewill Baptist. See F. Leroy Forline's Classical Arminianism and Quest for Truth, or Robert Piccirilli's Grace, Faith, and Free Will for examples of what Free Will Baptists believe.

If you're referring to my frequent Latin references, I can see why you might have made the assumption. Most of the Christian literature was written in Latin, thus it is a very useful language. In some ways, it can be easier to express things about God in Latin, because the language was dominated for so long by Christian thought.

It's funny to me that so many Protestants get irritable when I quote Latin prayers, considering that the people who started the Reformation were plenty comfortable writing in Latin.


You would be better off to just be a Christian, without the Baptist.

If you must be something or do something, then you are under the law.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
You would be better off to just be a Christian, without the Baptist.

If you must be something or do something, then you are under the law.

You teach salvation by works of the law, that man must do something to get saved! Faith is a work of the Law Matt 23:23 !
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
No, you're one who believes what some entirely non-authoritative sectarian Protestant wrote during the past few decades!

:doh:

If there was just something in the Bible about Catholicism.

Since there is NOTHING, it appears to me that Catholicism is the fairy tale of the century.
 

Cruciform

New member
If there was just something in the Bible about Catholicism.
  • First, note that Pate's comments here in no way do anything whatsoever to negate---let alone refute---my statements in Post #156 above.
  • Second, the Catholic Church is present throughout the New Testament, for example, here.

So much for Pate's latest feeble anti-Catholic claim. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

lukecash12

New member
You would be better off to just be a Christian, without the Baptist.

If you must be something or do something, then you are under the law.

Facepalm....

Of course I'm a Christian! For Pete's sake, people... When someone, especially someone well educated in theology, happens to share the association they affiliate themselves with, what they are saying is: "I am a Christian, who also happens to line up this way in a variety of theological areas."

This reflexive response of "oh, you mentioned you're part of the Freewill Baptist association so you're not emphasizing yourself as a Christian" is a bunch of bologna. No one "must be something or do something", rather "Freewill Baptist" is more helpful theological shorthand than "I'm a Christian".

Of course I'm a Christian, my friend, I've always maintained that Jesus is the Lord, fully man and fully divine, that He is the propitiation for our sins, and that God is triune. You said that I appeared Catholic, and gave me every reason to believe that you wanted to know more than whether or not I was a Christian at all. Why on earth would I just respond to that with "I'm Christian"? Hadn't we already established that?
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
  • First, note that Pate's comments here in no way do anything whatsoever to negate---let alone refute---my statements in Post #156 above.
  • Second, the Catholic Church is present throughout the New Testament, for example, here.

So much for Pate's latest feeble anti-Catholic claim. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+


Where does it say that Peter is or was the pope of the Roman Catholic church?

The only thing that is in the Bible that resembles Catholicism Is Pharisaism.
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Facepalm....

Of course I'm a Christian! For Pete's sake, people... When someone, especially someone well educated in theology, happens to share the association they affiliate themselves with, what they are saying is: "I am a Christian, who also happens to line up this way in a variety of theological areas."

This reflexive response of "oh, you mentioned you're part of the Freewill Baptist association so you're not emphasizing yourself as a Christian" is a bunch of bologna. No one "must be something or do something", rather "Freewill Baptist" is more helpful theological shorthand than "I'm a Christian".

Of course I'm a Christian, my friend, I've always maintained that Jesus is the Lord, fully man and fully divine, that He is the propitiation for our sins, and that God is triune. You said that I appeared Catholic, and gave me every reason to believe that you wanted to know more than whether or not I was a Christian at all. Why on earth would I just respond to that with "I'm Christian"? Hadn't we already established that?


1 Corinthians 1:10-17. Click twice.
 
Top