- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pope Francis infection is presenting a "complex, clinical picture" according to Vatican
Posted on 2/17/25 at 4:57 pm to Stitches
Posted on 2/17/25 at 4:57 pm to Stitches
quote:The story starts at the end of chapter 11 but the same pattern of God promising and Abram believing started at the beginning of chapter 12. I just mentioned 15 and 17 because that was what Paul was referring to specifically. Even so, no where in those chapter from 11 through 17 does it say that Abraham was justified by his works. His good works followed his faith. Faith was not counted as a work, which was Paul's point in Romans.
So he was justified in Genesis 15 after performing 3 chapters full of good works? I thought you said he was justified by faith alone.
quote:Paul's entire argument was that works do NOT justify someone, but only faith. That's precisely why he mentioned Abraham's faith before his obedience to the law/command of circumcision. His other works (such as saving Abram) were not said to have been counted as righteousness. In fact, had it said so, it would militate against Paul's teaching about faith apart from works.
If he were justified by faith alone, you should have quoted Hebrews 11:8 where Paul gives us examples of saving faith, one of which was Abraham when he left his homeland and followed God by faith. Except this didn't happen in Genesis 15, it happened in Genesis 12. So to Paul, abraham already had justifying faith in Genesis 12, was justified (again) in Genesis 15 (like you said) after performing 3 chapters full of good works, and then a third time when he offered Isaac. THAT is whh Abraham was said to have been justified prior to circumcision, because he was, twice.
You initially said that Paul was only teaching against the Mosaic law and I showed you that Abraham was before Moses, so your interpretation of doesn't work. In Romans 9, Paul said that God predestined Jacob and not Esau and even pointed out that it was before either of them had done anything good (good works). I should mentioned that both of those fellows predated Moses by a long time, as well, so he wasn't talking about the law of Moses here, either.
Rome's gross and perverted belief that salvation comes from works in addition to faith is precisely what Paul was teaching against. His entire point was that no work of the law can justify someone before God because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, both Jews and Gentiles. Paul speaks to both early on in his letter to the Romans because he wanted to drive home the point that it was neither the works of the law (any laws--Mosaic or otherwise) nor the works according to conscience (the Gentiles who didn't have the law of Moses) that save anyone, but only the grace of God as a gift. Paul specifically said that if the law could justify, it wouldn't be a gift but a wage. I don't understand how any form of works can then be added back as if Paul wasn't talking about that.
What is later written about Abraham being justified by his works was not a meritorious addition to his faith, but a confirmation of his faith through obedience to God's command. Abraham's salvation came by faith, and his faith was justified (proven) by his obedience. Rome conflates these two things as if Abraham's faith was insufficient for righteousness being imputed to him (even though that was the point of Genesis 15:6, which Paul quotes in the context of saving faith not saving works) but that his righteousness was only obtained through obedience.
You have to completely butcher Paul's text in order to have your interpretation. The natural flow from Romans 1 all the way through chapter 9 and onward is one long logical argument that extends beyond the Mosaic law, which was your initial claim.
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 5:00 pm
1
Posted on 2/17/25 at 5:07 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Paul's entire argument was that works do NOT justify someone, but only faith.
I'm just going to sum up my argument against your word salad with this one point.
You missed the entire context of the issue Paul was addressing. His entire argument was against the Judaizers who were teaching the Gentiles that they had to first become Jews through circumcision and keeping of the Mosaic law before they could become Christians.
Paul's major point in Romans and elsewhere is that Gentiles can be justified without being circumcised and following the Law, just like Abraham was.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 5:10 pm to Stitches
I hope the Communist pope asks Jesus to forgive him for all his sins.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 5:25 pm to Stitches
quote:You make it sound like there is nothing that is clear--including a clearly defined doctrinal statement about the nature and authority of Scripture--and that everything is just my interpretation. Do you deny that anything can be clearly understood, including your own church's teachings?
Again, this assumption is based on your interpretation of the doctrine.
quote:It sounds like you don't know what the Lutherans teach, either.
I wasn't. I acknowledge that the clarity of scripture isn't the same as the sufficiency of scripture, neither of which are taught in scripture. The WCF 1.7 says those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
And yet, we know that isn't true, because there are serious disagreements about what is required in order to be saved by those who sincerely apply the doctrine of scripture alone. For example, Lutherans agree with the historic Church that salvation comes through baptism based on what scripture says. Presbyterians disagree based in what scripture says...the doctrine of "Sola Mea Interpretatio" at work.
Lutherans fully reject the Roman Catholic view of baptism. They do not deny justification by faith alone (Catholicism denies this and teaches that baptism is a necessary act for salvation). Lutherans actually teach that baptism is necessary in the way that all Protestants teach that works are necessary: they exhibit or demonstrate necessary faith rather than merit righteousness.
So even in this example you provided, you're mistaken. All Protestants (well, all generally--I'm sure there are some that are outliers) believe that salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for God's glory alone, according to the authority of the Scriptures alone, and the Scriptures are plain enough to understand this in themselves. It is sinful man that brings his desire to contribute his own works to what God has done through Christ that causes a perversion of the Gospel, and it's that perversion we see in works-oriented religions like Catholicism.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 5:56 pm to Stitches
quote:I didn't miss the point. I was actually going to provide the argument that Paul makes through the first 10 chapters of Romans but it was too much to post, so I'll summarize:
I'm just going to sum up my argument against your word salad with this one point.
You missed the entire context of the issue Paul was addressing. His entire argument was against the Judaizers who were teaching the Gentiles that they had to first become Jews through circumcision and keeping of the Mosaic law before they could become Christians.
Paul's major point in Romans and elsewhere is that Gentiles can be justified without being circumcised and following the Law, just like Abraham was.
Paul isn't speaking only to circumcision and the law for Jews who sought to force it on the Gentiles for salvation. Paul talks about the sins of the Gentiles that the Jews also do, and that though the Jews have the law, they were condemned by it, while the Gentiles were also condemned apart from the law. He says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. He says that both Jews and Gentiles stand condemned through Adam's sin, and condemnation existed for those who lived before Moses and the law.
This is the background to Paul's statements about justification coming through faith in Christ as a free gift, not according to works, which would impose an obligation upon God to grant salvation as a wage.
Paul couldn't have been any more clear or stronger in his point that obedience to the law doesn't save anyone, because even Paul couldn't obey as he wanted (ch. 7), but all people--Jews and Gentiles--have disobeyed God, stand condemned, and must receive justification by the grace of God through the work of Jesus Christ alone.
You can't wish away most of Paul's letter as not being applicable to Christians because he was talking to Jews within a certain context, and that his statements about justification being by God's grace as a gift either don't matter to us or are incomplete.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 6:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Lutherans fully reject the Roman Catholic view of baptism. They do not deny justification by faith alone (Catholicism denies this and teaches that baptism is a necessary act for salvation). Lutherans actually teach that baptism is necessary in the way that all Protestants teach that works are necessary: they exhibit or demonstrate necessary faith rather than merit righteousness.
I stopped reading here. This is just absurdly false. Lutherans fully embrace baptismal regeneration. They, like Catholics, just also believe that baptism isn't absolutely necessary for salvation by acknowledging there are exceptions (baptism of desire and baptism of blood), because although we are limited to the sacrament, God is not. The only group I know of that teaches water baptism as an absolute necessity with zero exceptions is Church of Christ.
Lutherans can teach and believe in baptismal regeneration AND sola fide, because they, like Catholics, understand that baptism isn't a work. It's not something one does, but rather, it's something one receives.
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 2/17/25 at 6:15 pm to Stitches
quote:Perhaps you should keep reading rather than ignoring those things which don't seem to align with your false understanding.
I stopped reading here. This is just absurdly false. Lutherans fully embrace baptismal regeneration. They, like Catholics, just also believe that baptism isn't absolutely necessary for salvation by acknowledging there are exceptions.
Here's what an FAQ from the LCMS website
Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart.
Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.
This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).
Parents and sponsors of a baptized child bear the responsibility of teaching this child God's Word so that the child's faith may remain alive and grow (Matt. 28:18-20).
Confirmation is a time-honored church tradition (not required by God's Word, but we believe useful nonetheless) in which the child baptized as an infant is given the opportunity to confess for himself or herself the faith that he or she was unable to confess as an infant.
Faith is not “created” at confirmation, but it is rather confessed for all to hear so that the church can join and rejoice in this public confession, which has its roots in the faith which God Himself created in Baptism.
So while their view of baptism does differ from other Reformed or Protestant denominations, they do not claim baptism is a work that takes away sin apart from or in addition to faith. So with that, they do not believe a different Gospel than I do.
ETA: Also take a look at that same link regarding good works and salvation. They take a typical "Reformed" view of good works being fruits of salvation rather than the meritorious cause of salvation. This militates against your view that they teach a different gospel.
quote:Again, their view is more nuanced than that of Rome, and even if their practice is "off", it still technically abides by their confession in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. Baptism doesn't save apart from faith in Christ.
Lutherans can teach and believe in baptismal regeneration AND sola fide, because they, like Catholics, understand that baptism isn't a work. It's not something one does, but rather, it's something one receives.
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 2/17/25 at 6:22 pm to RollTide1987
Maybe he’ll get a DEI doctor idk
Posted on 2/17/25 at 6:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
quote:
Baptism, we believe, creates the gift of faith in a person's heart.
Lutheran salvation = grace -> faith -> salvation
Faith is a result of baptism.
Therefore salvation = grace -> baptism -> salvation
So, like I said, they believe in baptismal regeneration just like Catholics do.
quote:
they do not claim baptism is a work that takes away sin apart from or in addition to faith.
Neither do Catholics. You're aggressively going in the direction of retarded Presbyterian.
quote:
Baptism doesn't save apart from faith in Christ.
That is also the Catholic teaching.
quote:
So with that, they do not believe a different Gospel than I do.
And so with that, neither does the Catholic church.
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:07 pm to Stitches
You guys are like two nerds living in a fantasy arguing over the superiority of the x-wing vs tie fighter.
ETA:
News flash! None of the shite you are arguing about is real!
ETA:
News flash! None of the shite you are arguing about is real!
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 2/17/25 at 7:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Pope Francis infection
TDS?
Posted on 2/17/25 at 8:16 pm to Stitches
The world is created twice in two different sequences. Noah brings both 2 and also 14 of livestock and clean animals. There’s two stories of Abraham tricking a ruler into marrying his “sister” Sarah and making off like a bandit after god punishes the king (and a third duplicate this time with Isaac tricking Abimelech). Two stories of Jacob being renamed “Israel”. Two stories of Joseph being sold by the Ishmaelites and Midianites. God kills all the Egyptian livestock 4 times in a row. Moses gets two different sets of commandments on Mount Sinai (don’t boil a young goat in its mother’s milk).
I know you people can’t be this stupid to believe all that mythical shite on top of science excoriating the “historical” accounts in the Bible.
There are no pillars of earth, pillars of heaven, or firmament. There is no heavenly ocean of water, no subterranean great deep ocean, and the stars and sun and moon are not little lights used for navigation under the firmament. The earth is spherical, not a flat disk.
Both Paul and the gospel authors wrote about how Jesus was supposed to judge the living and the dead and destroy the heavens and the earth and give believers brand new heavenly spirit bodies… within the lifetimes of Paul and “Jesus” over 1900 years ago. They are failed prophecies by failed prophets, just like every other prophecy.
Many of you are reasonably intelligent (exception Rogertheshrubber). There’s something else horribly wrong in your head as a reasonably intelligent person who is as gullible as you are. Many of you are the epitome of cognitive dissonance. You have been duped, and you like it. It’s very sad.
ETA: can’t believe I forgot to mention the 4 different times Saul met David for the first time. Saul meets Jesse and David and David plays the lyre for Saul and Saul loves him. And then right after that David kills Goliath and Saul again asks who he is and who’s his daddy. And then Dagon resurrects Goliath so that the exact same philistine warrior from Gath could be killed again by ElHanan when David is old and feeble. You don’t feel stupid for believing this shite blindly? Do you not have a bullshite detector?
I know you people can’t be this stupid to believe all that mythical shite on top of science excoriating the “historical” accounts in the Bible.
There are no pillars of earth, pillars of heaven, or firmament. There is no heavenly ocean of water, no subterranean great deep ocean, and the stars and sun and moon are not little lights used for navigation under the firmament. The earth is spherical, not a flat disk.
Both Paul and the gospel authors wrote about how Jesus was supposed to judge the living and the dead and destroy the heavens and the earth and give believers brand new heavenly spirit bodies… within the lifetimes of Paul and “Jesus” over 1900 years ago. They are failed prophecies by failed prophets, just like every other prophecy.
Many of you are reasonably intelligent (exception Rogertheshrubber). There’s something else horribly wrong in your head as a reasonably intelligent person who is as gullible as you are. Many of you are the epitome of cognitive dissonance. You have been duped, and you like it. It’s very sad.
ETA: can’t believe I forgot to mention the 4 different times Saul met David for the first time. Saul meets Jesse and David and David plays the lyre for Saul and Saul loves him. And then right after that David kills Goliath and Saul again asks who he is and who’s his daddy. And then Dagon resurrects Goliath so that the exact same philistine warrior from Gath could be killed again by ElHanan when David is old and feeble. You don’t feel stupid for believing this shite blindly? Do you not have a bullshite detector?
This post was edited on 2/17/25 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 2/17/25 at 9:19 pm to Stitches
quote:Their view of baptismal regeneration is not like Catholicism, though. They actually differentiate between infused righteousness (Catholicism) and imputed righteousness (Lutheranism) and the necessity of increasing (or restoring if lost) grace from baptism through additional works like confession and penance as a second plank of salvation, which is what Rome teaches. Lutherans believe that justification is a once-for-all event merited by Christ and imputed by faith, and that faith--which is a trusting in God's promises--is received through grace, and that grace is given by multiple methods, specifically the word preached and the word delivered through the sacraments. They teach that the means of grace are received passively by Christians through faith, and that no works are added to recover or add to our justification, as Rome teaches.
Lutheran salvation = grace -> faith -> salvation
Faith is a result of baptism.
Therefore salvation = grace -> baptism -> salvation
So, like I said, they believe in baptismal regeneration just like Catholics do.
So yes, they believe in baptismal regeneration, but not because the water is magical or miraculous and not because there is a work of grace being done by the person or by the one baptizing, but because through the sign, God really and truly either seals the faith of the believer or creates faith in the infant, because the sign is and accompanies the word of God. Therefore, they still say that even in baptism, the Christian is saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
quote:Hold on now. Does Catholicism teach that infant baptism creates faith in the child like Lutherans believe? Or, is it rather a sacramental act that infuses grace into the child for the forgiveness of sins, based on the faith of the parents? It's my understanding that infant baptism in Catholicism requires a child to exercise their own faith once they reach an age of accountability, which at that time, they must add their own faith to their baptism. Is that right?
Neither do Catholics. You're aggressively going in the direction of retarded Presbyterian.
quote:Sure, in addition to works, since Rome anathematizes the notion that anyone is saved by faith alone apart from good works.
That is also the Catholic teaching.
However, I should clarify that Lutherans believe that baptism saves through faith, and that in both the instance of the professor of faith and the infant, that faith is either strengthened or created through baptism. It's my understanding that in Catholicism, that faith is not granted to the child but the child must eventually come to faith years later when they are capable of believing.
quote:Rome actually does. Lutherans--even if they are a bit odd about it in my opinion--still hold that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from human works of merit (good or bad). Catholicism teaches that you can fall from a state of grace (salvation) by performing bad works (mortal sins), and that you have to perform good works in addition to faith to return to a state of grace (salvation), even if we ignore the hellish state of Purgatory that the saved person still has to go through when they die before entering into Heaven.
And so with that, neither does the Catholic church.
Since the Scriptures teach that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone by God's grace alone, apart from works, Lutherans and Protestants are in agreement in the one Gospel of Jesus Christ where we are saved by the shed blood of Christ alone on the cross. Catholics teach that we must add something to the finished work of Jesus Christ to be saved, so Rome teaches a different gospel.
Posted on 2/17/25 at 9:22 pm to RollTide1987
Hell to pay
Posted on 2/17/25 at 10:19 pm to Snipe
quote:
The Catholic Church is the only apostolic church with its root in Jesus Christ through the apostles.
Incorrect.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:31 am to RollTide1987
First, let me say I hope Pope Francis is ok, and I'm praying for him.
Second, I hear he commonly gets bronchitis, while the infection may not be typical.
But I see this has become a Catholic get some theology wrong debate, and therefore we are condemned or something like that. This time about justification.
To me, it is simple. The initial moment we were saved is by God's grace alone, and he alone sustains us in salvation. This is typically done through baptism, but the sacraments don't bind God, so he may save some in other ways. God of course is the one who saves us, but pouring water over someone's head also saves the person. Not because its a work but rather God commanded us to baptize in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit. He gave sanctifying power to pouring water and saying the trinitarian formula.
We cooperate with God's grace to work on our salvation with fear and trembling the rest of our lives. (see Philippians 2:12) We have already been justified so in no way do our works save us, but as James said, "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Finally, I think the parable of the vine and the branches clearly shows that we need to work with God to stay connected to the vine, or to put it another way, we can lose our salvation.
Second, I hear he commonly gets bronchitis, while the infection may not be typical.
But I see this has become a Catholic get some theology wrong debate, and therefore we are condemned or something like that. This time about justification.
To me, it is simple. The initial moment we were saved is by God's grace alone, and he alone sustains us in salvation. This is typically done through baptism, but the sacraments don't bind God, so he may save some in other ways. God of course is the one who saves us, but pouring water over someone's head also saves the person. Not because its a work but rather God commanded us to baptize in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit. He gave sanctifying power to pouring water and saying the trinitarian formula.
We cooperate with God's grace to work on our salvation with fear and trembling the rest of our lives. (see Philippians 2:12) We have already been justified so in no way do our works save us, but as James said, "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Finally, I think the parable of the vine and the branches clearly shows that we need to work with God to stay connected to the vine, or to put it another way, we can lose our salvation.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:31 am to 62zip
quote:
Incorrect.
explain
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:31 am to RollTide1987
He’s infected with marxism. There’s no cure.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 7:32 am
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:35 am to RollTide1987
A rumor that I just made up is that is Chlamydia pneumoniae. 
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News