re: Does IVF create abortions?

ECF in one place: see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

The same ECF elsewhere: a man is justified by faith

Me: ok so that ECF believes we are justified by faith, and also by works, so it's faith and works which justify just like James 2 teaches, and the Apostolic churches believe, and just like Abraham exemplified.

Foo: NO. You're reading your theology back into that ECF. He is saying that works simply show you're truly justified by faith alone through Christ alone.

Me: uh, no. He literally said we are NOT justified by faith alone. So he flat out rejects sola fide. He then says we are justified by faith (but nowhere does it say faith alone), but also works elsewhere. So it's faith and works as an ongoing process, since ALL Christians prior to Protestants existing believed in ongoing justification just like happened in the life of Abraham.

Foo: No, you Papist! You are twisting his words in an attempt to anachronisticly make that ECF seem like a Catholic

*that ECF elsewhere*

ECF: receives a letter from Corinth while serving as the Bishop of Rome asking for advice on how to handle a local church dispute. Then writes a scathing letter from Rome to the church in Corinth demanding (not suggesting) they bring back the Presbyters they kicked out of the church, while the Apostle John is still alive and practically right down road from Corinth, which would be a massive no-no if the church were operating on a Presbyterian or Congregational model, or the Bishop of Rome wasn't some sort of divinely instituted successive office that served as the vicor of the church, especially when an apostle is still alive, and yet the church in Corinth only responds by believing said writing to be inspired scripture.

Me: yeah that's because he was Catholic. He served as the Bishop of Rome, with no other co-equal bishops in Rome to answer to, and even exercised supreme universal jurisdiction in his lone surviving authentic letter to the church in Corinth. That's what we call the Pope.

Foo after straightening his bow tie, and in a super zesty voice: ughhh, like omg, you are SO frikkin anachronistic in your reading of the ECFs. When that ECF said we are not justified by faith alone, what he really meant was we ARE justified by faith alone, and works simply follow to prove we are truly justified, and they only serve to sanctify us.

Me: but he literally says not by faith alone, and that works truly justify us, as does faith. So that is 2 justifications based on 2 different things. In fact, the word sanctification isn't even mentioned. It seems like you're assuming that "faith" is synonymous with "faith alone". It isn't. I also think you're reading your 500 year old manmade theology back into this ECF who wouldn't be allowed to stand in your pulpit today based on their other extremely Catholic beliefs. But why use words when we can meme:

quote:

---

Another aspect that’s normally glossed over is that fig couples can dial up a baby in this industry. Some of us don’t think that’s Gods law of which natural law follows

---

Stop imposing your beliefs on others. That’s unamerican of you.

Your weird fake dialogue wasn't true to life, though. It's more like an ECF says that you're justified by faith apart from works and then says you're justified by works. It's as if they didn't mean the same thing the RCC of today means.

When the Apostle Paul says you are saved by faith, not according to works, that should suffice to show that faith as a gift is something different than works and provides for our justification by itself. When works are discussed, it's within the context of either attempting to save yourself through obedience to the law of God, or as an indicator of true, saving faith. It's why Jesus spoke of being connected to the true vine and producing good fruit that indicates a good tree.

Regarding the church government issue: your illustration doesn't hold water. Many bishops (not just the one in Rome) were consulted in various matters by congregations. Others beyond the one in Rome were held in high honor, and the Roman bishop didn't even preside over the first several councils. There were times when the Roman bishop was either in grave error or when councils actually rejected the opinions of Rome. Vatican I's comments about the government of the church is historically inaccurate and doesn't match what actually happened.

There is a clear evolution from a Presbyterian form of government with 2 offices (Bishop/Elder and Deacon) where one bishop eventually was called upon to have primacy in a given diocese, and then eventually the bishop of Rome occupied a first among equals role, and then after many centuries, the Roman bishop had full primacy of jurisdiction. It didn't start out that way, but the Roman bishop's authority evolved over a long time.