Hi Fred! It is good to hear from you. I have been waiting for your response.

 

Well, I see that your fingers were really busy trying to make a case for the Roman Catholic position against justification by faith alone. More that fifteen pages, single space, margin to margin. Again, a person will go to great lengths to discredit another point of view when it threatens his belief system. It took me a while to read through your message, but I'll try to keep my response short and to the point.

 

As I showed in my extended critique of your message, Protestants do not know Scripture. They misquote it, misinterpret it, and when they can't subvert its clear literal message they dismiss it as referring to a "previous dispensation." Also they delude themselves into thinking that their views derive from the Bible when in reality their religions are based upon the operative presuppositions from Protestant systematics, Nominalist philosophy, and accommodation to the current standards of the secular world. Such an inconsistent and contradictory mish-mash is no threat to the Historic Catholic Christian faith. In fact it is a sad parody at best. I honestly cannot understand how anyone can place the opinions of Luther, Calvin, et al in opposition to the clear teachings of my Lord and Savior.

 

The difference between us is that you get your gospel from the Roman Catholic church and I get mine from the apostle Paul, who got his gospel by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12).

 

No. I get my Gospels from the GOSPELS which contain the teachings of Jesus Himself and from the rest of the Bible and Tradition which flesh out his teachings. St. Paul claimed to have received his message from Jesus himself and not to have been taught it from men but he also acknowledged the teaching authority of the other Apostles and agreed with them on the content of the Gospel. That is why he went to Jerusalem:

 

There is no reason to think that the preaching of St. Paul was any different than that of the other Apostles. The gospels were composed by these same Apostles or their disciples and in fact the Gospel of Luke was reputed to be written by St. Luke under the tutelage of St. Paul. If you are trying to oppose the teaching of St. Paul to the rest of the NT, you are doing violence to Scripture and trying to make void the word of God. I stand with the Catholic Tradition on the WHOLE witness of Scripture and not on any "canon within a canon," dispensational dismissal, or other form of equivocation.

 

His gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, was an advance of the gospel proclaimed by Christ to Israel and by the apostles at Pentecost.

 

There is no proof of this from either Scripture or Tradition. As I showed above, St. Paul's gospel was judged as orthodox by the Apostles in Jerusalem and was NO DIFFERENT that that taught by anyone else. St. Paul makes this point himself in 1Corinthians 1:

 

St. Paul did not see any valid justification for division among Christians. In his confrontation with St. Peter over the situation in Antioch, he clearly thought that St. Peter was not acting in accordance with their COMMONLY held faith. e culminates his comments on this with the following:

 

St. Paul is saying that there is no distinction between any ethnic group before God and that both Jews and Gentiles AS Jews and Gentiles stand before God as equal offspring and heirs to Abraham's promise. He does not tell Jews not to be Jews anymore (i.e. to abandon their customs). In fact St. Paul remained a practicing Jew all of his life right up to the end.

 

As far as St. Paul was concerned, there was no new "dispensation." He was both a practicing Christian and an observant Jew. If there were some dispensational difference, he would have given up one for the other.

 

There is indeed a difference between the gospel of the uncircumcision and the gospel of the circumcision; between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God; and between our Lord's earthly ministry (to the nation of Israel) and His heavenly ministry (to the Jew and Gentile without distinction).

 

Absolutely not! If you want to claim this show me some Scripture to back it up. There is only ONE Gospel for all mankind and it is contained in the written Gospels and the rest of the NT equally. The Jews refused to accept the ONE Gospel BECAUSE it included the Gentiles. That was the real sticking point between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus taught that Samaritans could be good, Publicans could be justified and that a Roman Centurion could have more faith than any other man in Israel. Is that the Gospel to Israel and not to the nations? To which "dispensation" do you attribute THAT teaching? Don't be absurd. You are obliged to follow Jesus' teachings and anything that you find contradicting it you are to reject.

 

It seems that obedience to the Mosaic Law in some way determines one's place in the "Kingdom of heaven" not just the nation of Israel. The Catholic Tradition teaches that it is the moral requirements of the Law of which he is speaking since the ceremonial were fulfilled by the sacrificial death of Jesus and can no longer be fulfilled since the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood in 70 AD.

 

If you study the Scriptures objectively and dispensationally with a humble spirit you will see that these things are so.

 

Quite the contrary as I have shown the "dispensational" paradigm is just like Wellhausen's JEDP theory of the construction of the Pentateuch: artificial, non-scriptural, contradictory, and based upon ulterior motives, not exposition of Scripture. Do you realize that you must ADD dispensationalism to the Bible in order to assert it? By what authority do you do so? There is not ONE SINGLE verse in all Scripture that teaches this. You only need to have dispensationalism in order to ignore the parts of the NT that you don't like based upon your desire to follow the "systematic theologies" of Luther, Calvin, et al.

 

You have pretty much admitted that your views CONTRADICT the teachings of Jesus. Don't you see that you are no longer a Christian as a result and that you are now claiming that the teachings of Jesus have "passed away"? I stand with the words of my Lord and Savior against your views.

 

May I remind you that the epistles written by Paul ARE the teachings of Christ?

 

No they are not. They are St. Paul's teachings ABOUT Christ. If you ignore Christ's own words in the Gospels you are ignoring the teachings of CHRIST. If you interpret the teachings of St. Paul in a manner that contradicts the clear words of Jesus, you are no Christian and you have placed yourself above the Scriptures to pick and choose whatever seems right in your own eyes. If you are to be a Christian you must HARMONIZE the teachings of St. Paul with that of Jesus and your interpretation of St. Paul must give way to the clear words of Christ who is the very Word of God himself. No compromise.

 

We just don't try to allegorize, spiritualize, or synthesize Scripture to conform to some man-made tradition or doctrine.

 

You violate the clear words of Scripture for the sake of Protestant systematic theology. I would also remind you that in the areas of conflict between Catholics and Protestants, it is NEVER the Catholics who "allegorize, spiritualize, or synthesize Scripture" but ALWAYS the Protestants. For example: Matthew 5 to 7, 6:12-15, 16:16-20, 16:27, 18:18, 25:31ff, 26:26ff; Mark 14:22ff; Luke 22:19ff; John 3:5, 6:32ff, 20:23; Acts 2:38, 19:1ff, 22:16; Romans 2:1ff ( especially v.13), 6:3ff; 13:8-10, 15:15-16; Galatians 5:6, 5:14, 6:7-8; 1Corinthians 3:8, 11:24ff, 13:1ff; 2Corinthians 5:10; 2Timothy 3:14-15; 2Peter 1:20, 3:15ff; James 1:22, 2:24; Revelation 2:23, 20:12, 22:12.

 

Actually, the dispensational approach provides a compelling argument against the fraudulent claims of Roman Catholicism with regard to apostolic succession, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, and the Roman church as the visible kingdom of God on earth.

 

It provides you a dishonest EXCUSE to reject the clear teaching of Scripture for the mere opinions and traditions of heretics and apostates. What is very sad is that most of your own Protestant confreres do not accept "dispensationalism" and they have written numerous treatises against it. You should read a few of them.

 

We believe and live by the truth as expressed in Romans 6.

 

So you accept Baptismal regeneration? (Romans 6:3) Hardly.

 

Does that sound antinomian? I think not.

 

Yes. You claim to be "led by the Spirit" yet my Lord and Savior taught that you must "KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS" (e.g., Matthew 19:17; John 14:15, 15:10) as did St. Paul (1Timothy 1:8-11). Antinomianism is not keeping to any law code. If you refuse to accept the 10 Commandments and just act spontaneously on a whim, you are an antinomian. Oh, you may claim inconsistently to adhere to moral standards, but in doing so, you contradict your thesis that you act spontaneously in the spirit. This is self deception. It may not be obvious to you but it is clear to the rest of us.

 

On the other hand, what law does the Roman Catholic live by?

 

By every word that comes from the mouth of God. We follow Jesus and keep his commandments s he instructed us to. The curse of the law that St. Paul is talking about in Galatians 3:13 is not the law itself. The Law itself is Holy. It is the failure to KEEP the law that brings down a curse on people.

 

Besides at this point you are playing a silly semantic game. In your next sentence you enumerate a list of laws that you yourself hold to. Essentially, you are a hypocrite because you denounce us for having laws and then you admit that you have laws yourself. All the flowery quotations of St. Paul that you can piece together out of context do not absolve you from this. You also have laws by which you govern yourselves and in that you are no different than we are.

 

We Catholics do not hold to the entire Mosaic law but only those parts that are revealed for all God's people for all time just as Jesus said in Matthew 5. We are following Jesus when we do so. We also have a mandate from Jesus as to the making of laws and the binding of consciences.

 

This power to make binding rules on the Church was exercised by the Apostles during what you call "the dispensation of grace." Read Acts 15 for the whole story but please note verse 28: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...

 

So the laying of burdens on the Church has always been the prerogative of the Apostles and their successors. We are thoroughly Biblical when we legislate rules for the Universal Church. You on the other hand are in direct conflict with Scripture when you say that such legislation is not Christian.

 

With regard to faith, let me clear up any misconceptions you seem to have regarding what true Christianity teaches concerning the faith that saves, or the faith that justifies. I quote from A Dispensational Theology by Charles F. Baker. Saving faith is "....that faith in our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, which results in regeneration, the renewal of the inner man, and which imparts forgiveness of the penalty of sin and creates one anew as a child of God and a member of the Body of Christ. This kind of faith includes not only mental assent to the truth and emotional feeling, but also the volitional element, the activity of the will in surrendering self to God and appropriating Christ as Savior. It is a persuasion which results in trust and commitment."

 

There is much I would agree with in here and some that I would disagree with (especially the absence of any mention of Baptism), but Baker does not speak for all Protestants and there are several Protestants that I know who would condemn his views as heretical, especially people in the Lutheran camp for adding the will to faith and in the Calvinist camp for having regeneration proceed from faith instead of being the basis of faith. This is the problem of trying to have an intelligent conversation with a Protestant. No one among you speaks with authority for all of you. This is apparently an opinion that either you like of that you think should impress me. All it does is reinforce what I already know. Protestantism is what ever a particular Protestant wants it to be. If you are going to contradict Luther or Calvin you can do so with impunity because ultimately you invent your own religion for yourself and only hold to what you want to. If Luther did teach something hard to defend, deny it! There is never any need to defend anything you don't personally fancy and you can equivocate when the going gets rough. There is never any submission to the authority that Christ gave to his Church.

 

There is no reference whatever to justification by faith AND works in any of the Pauline revelation.

 

Now it is the Pauline REVELATION, separate and distinct from the revelation given by Jesus! Is Christ divided? Were you baptized into Paul? St. Paul has now become your "christ" and the real Christ is ignored because he doesn't say what you want to hear. Think about it.

 

But to the heart of your statement, the biblical concept of justification by faith (as I stated in my previous response and as Mr. Baker did in the quote you used) INCLUDES a good will and a good will inevitably means good works. As such good works are an INTEGRAL part of a saving faith, not something added on to it. As such, to judge a man's works IS the SAME as to judge his faith. That was the point St. James was making. To this St. Paul would agree. That is the CATHOLIC position and it is thoroughly Biblical. Let's see if St. Paul agrees:

 

Add that to the teachings of the rest of the NT and you know what you have? AGREEMENT between Jesus, St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter, and St. John that faith without works is dead and cannot save.

 

My challenge to you: show me ONE verse where ANYONE in the NT says that we will be judged by Christ according to our faith ALONE without any reference to our works. I can give you at least a half dozen that say we will be judged according to our works and half of them are from St. Paul!

 

Please understand that the works which St. Paul excludes from justification are "works of the Torah" which were used by the Judaizers as boundary markers to separate the "righteous" Jew from Gentile "sinners." St. Paul does not exclude the necessity of keeping the moral law for the Christian believer:

 

The above quotation makes it clear that by loving our neighbor we are keeping the law and therefore have no need to hold to the letter of the Mosaic law. this is actually an allusion to the teaching of Jesus who said:

 

So it appears that St. Paul alludes favorably to the teaching of Jesus in what you consider to be the previous "dispensation." Hmm... Looks like St. Paul was NOT a dispensationalist, was he?

 

You accuse Protestants of "using a phrase for a biblical doctrine that is not only absent from the entire text of the Bible, but contradicts the very words of Scripture itself (James 2:24)."

 

Absolutely. I still do. You have not refuted me on this point at all. Protestantism is in direct contradiction of the very words of the Scriptures at this point and others.

 

Then you (Roman Catholics) try to read words into Paul's epsitles which are nowhere to be found.

 

I read NOTHING into St. Paul's epistles that he did not write there. The above quotations make it clear that St. Paul believed in the necessity of good works for salvation as did all of the rest of the NT authors and Jesus himself. The Bible has spoken. It reaffirms what the Catholic Church has taught. The matter is closed. You are wrong.

 

The whole issue between your persuasion and mine revolves around the biblical definitions of grace, faith, justification and works and how we understand Scripture.

 

No. Your definitions are not Biblical. They come from Protestant systematic theology. On the contrary, mine are derived from the Bible. The WHOLE Bible. Not just the parts that I want to include. The issue is the overarching harmony of all Scripture. As a dispensationalist, you exclude from consideration those parts of the Scripture that Protestant systematic theology has denounced as obsolete. It is not coincidental that this gives you almost the same effective biblical canon as the early heretic Marcion. The 19th Century Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack declared Marcion to be the first Protestant. (B. B. Warfield disagreed and said it should have been Tertullian.) Your position was one of the first major heresies condemned by the Christian Church. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

With regard to the works of the law, where in Scripture do you find the moral law separated from the Mosaic Law?

 

The moral law is not derived from the Mosaic law but from the nature of Creation coming from the hand of God. The Mosaic law bears witness to the moral law but it does not establish it. If you wanted to claim that morality was derived from the law of Moses, then you would be declaring that all law is positive law and that there are no things that are good in themselves. Nor could you say that there was anything which would be intrinsically evil. Even without the law of Moses the murder of Abel by Cain was known to be evil. the same can be said for theft, adultery, torture, and lying. The Jews recognized this and they derived the seven "Noahide Laws" from Genesis 9 as a result. These were the laws binding upon all human beings.

 

If the Mosaic law were abrogated, it would have no effect on moral norms. They would remain because God had decreed them when he created the world. The law of Moses bore witness to God's plan from creation but several of the ordinances contained therein were neither perpetual nor for those outside Israel. For a fascination and complex discussion of this see Scott Hahn's doctoral dissertation "Kinship by Covenant."

 

Everywhere in Scripture, the Law is considered one unit. James 2:10; Matt. 22:36-40; Gal. 3:10-14; etc., etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only law the true Christian answers to in the dispensation of Grace is the law of the Spirit, of life in Christ Jesus. The effect of that law on the life of the believer is best described by Paul in Galatians 2:20,21 and 5:22,23.

 

The Catholic Church agrees with this and we indeed live by the law of the spirit because the Church's Magisterium is under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

 

St. Peter is defending his authority to teach and likening it to that of the OT prophets. It is precisely this which Jesus promised to him:

 

This is later repeated again in Matt 16:16ff.

 

But where in Scripture do you find a so-called "new law" as legislated by the RC church?

 

I don't understand. What "new law" are you referring to? Be specific.

 

I noted above that the Apostles were given the power of "binding and loosing" which is PRECISELY the right to hold people bound to do some thing's being able to free them to do others. They exercised this power in the book of Acts and in the epistles (especially 1Cor). This same authority resides in the Bishops of the Catholic Church who are the successors to the Apostles.

 

Using Roman Catholic logic, passages like Romans 11:6 and Ephesians 2:8-10 actually comes out teaching that salvation is by grace merited by works.

 

You do not understand what these Scriptures teach. They are saying that everything we have standing before God comes from Him as a gift, even those righteous works we may have performed. God did not save us BECAUSE we had any works that were worthy of salvation. He saved us IN ORDER that we might do the good works which he had foreordained. Let me quote the Council of Trent for you on this issue:

 

SESSION 6 CHAPTER VIII

 

HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

 

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

 

CHAPTER XVI

 

THE FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, THAT IS, THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS, AND THE NATURE OF THAT MERIT

 

Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.[93] For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name;[94] and, Do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward.[95] Hence, to those who work well unto the end[96] and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.[97] For this is the crown of justice which after his fight and course the Apostle declared was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming.[98] For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,[100] since Christ our Savior says: If anyone shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting.[101] Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves,[102] nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ. Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, Christ promises, shall not lose his reward;[103] and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory;[104] nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord,[105] whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits. And since in many things we all offend,[106] each one ought to have before his eyes not only the mercy and goodness but also the severity and judgment [of God]; neither ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything;[107] because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged not by the judgment of man but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God,[108] who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works.[109]

 

After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified, it seemed good to the holy council to add to these canons, that all may know not only what they must hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun.

 

93. See I Cor. 15:58. 94. Heb. 6:10. 95. Heb. 10:35. 96. Matt. 10:22. 97. Rom. 6:22. 98. See II Tim. 4:8. 99. John 15:1f. 100. Apoc. 14:13. 101. John 4:13f. 102. Rom. 10:3; II Cor. 3:5. 103. Matt. 10:42; Mark 9:40. 104. See II Cor. 4:17. 105. See I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17. 106. James 3:2. 107. See I Cor. 4:3f. 108. Ibid., 4:5. 109. Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Apoc. 22:12.

 

Grace is free, but you merit it. Salvation is free, but you merit it. Justification is free, but you merit it.

 

These statements do not reflect Catholic teaching. We do not teach that a man can merit grace, or salvation, or justification. If you read the above material from the Council of Trent you will see that. We do teach that you must have "merits" in order to gain eternal life but they are not derived from our own powers. These merits are the fruit of Christ and the Holy Spirit working in us. Technically it is Christ and the Holy Spirit who merit our salvation through our cooperation in their actions within us. All the merit and the credit goes to God. We are not the subjects of the verb 'to merit' but the instruments by which the meriting is brought about.

 

"Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due....Our merits are God's gifts." (RC Catechism, paragraph 2009)." Talk about a doctrine being in opposition to itself!

 

Let's quote the whole paragraph:

 

It seems you are taking exception to St. Augustine here. What St. Augustine is saying is that we are given the grace of salvation to include the merits from the good works that God has done through us. As such, our merits are not earned by us but given to us by God's own gracious action. This tallies nicely with Scripture as I and the Council of Trent have shown above. There is no contradiction here.

 

Dispensationally, water baptism is a work of the law. The Jews understood it as a rite of purification.

 

I see. Jesus was a liar when he said you needed to be "born from above by water and the Holy Spirit" and then went out baptizing people in John 4. There was no water baptism in the Apostolic Church. No Christians ever performed the rite of water baptism until it was reintroduced by us corrupt Catholics, huh? Get real. Water baptism has ALWAYS been held as necessary for salvation in the Christian Church until 16th Century heretics and apostates decided to invent a new Gnostic religion which found actual sacraments too carnal and material for their rarefied spiritual tastes. After all matter is BASE and disgusting isn't it? Creation is just a trap trying to seduce people away from spiritual things, right? You would rather be saved just by thinking about it, wouldn't you? Then you can forget about all these disgusting bodily functions and become like an angel is heaven when you die.

 

Fred, ours is a hope in RESURRECTION, not a Gnostic "release" from matter. Our souls are not separable from our bodies except by violence. In like fashion, our bodies must be saved as well as our spiritual parts. Consequently, our bodies must participate in our salvation. Actual water baptism is a sign of our belief in the resurrection and in the importance of our bodies to our salvation. You have descended into Gnostic blather. You should read what St. Augustine or St. Ambrose, or St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about baptism.

 

Who in the dispensation of grace actually experiences the effects of water baptism as described in Mark 16? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:16-18)

 

Read the passage carefully. it does not say that these things will result from water baptism, nor does it say that everyone who is baptized will experience them. It says that "these signs shall follow them that believe." Here we have the question of miracles. Clearly this passage says that God's people can expect signs and wonders among them. It doesn't say that we will all experience them. Indeed the Catholic Church performs exorcisms. St. Francis Xavier manifested the gift of tongues when he preached in Asia. St. Francis of Assisi handles dangerous serpents. St. John the Evangelist was made to drink poison by the Roman emperor but was not harmed. And there have been innumerable healings by the laying on of hands, often in conjunction with the sacrament of anointing. I have a cousin who was healed of Wilms tumor of the kidney through the intercession of Lourdes. These and other miracles are common among the Catholic people.

 

There is only one baptism in the dispensation of grace, and that is baptism by the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism that places us into Christ by identifying us with His death, burial and resurrection.

 

Rubbish. St. Paul says that there is only one baptism in Ephesians 4. In the entire NT water baptism is mentioned throughout and is considered the rite of initiation for Christians. Read Beasley-Murray's book "Baptism in the NT." There is no other baptism than water baptism and the regeneration of the Spirit accompanies it just like Jesus said.

 

This is where the demonic character of the Protestant lie manifests itself. In the entire history of the Church all of the Church Fathers including St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, etc. all believed in the necessity of water baptism. But now the Protestant Reformers arrive on the scene and say that everybody for 1500 years had gotten it all wrong and now you are going to set it right.

 

Christ's statement in John 3 about being born of water, even of the Spirit, has nothing to do with water baptism. In fact, at the time Christ made that statement the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:38,39).

 

Ah, so Jesus is a liar. He didn't really mean what he said. Did you ever notice this

 

And how dare anyone say that they are imitating Christ by submitting to water baptism? His purpose in submitting to water baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, and that was the righteousness of the law.

 

Well I am so glad that you have the oracles of God and can correct 2000 years of Christian error...NOT! You know not Christ or the scriptures. Read Romans 6:3ff and REPENT!

 

Certainly not for the forgiveness of sins, as you stated.

 

The forgiveness of our sins which he took upon himself, remember? he was sinless but he was baptized in order to bear those of his people.

 

The real baptism He came to be baptized with was His death on the cross for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection (Luke 12:50). This is the ONE baptism we are baptized with when we receive the Holy Sprit by the hearing of faith.

 

So we don't need the baptism of water but we need to be CRUCIFIED? Your views are ridiculous and unbiblical.

 

Acts 2:38 definitely speaks of water baptism, since that was a requirement of salvation in the gospel of the kingdom (when the law was still in effect).

 

How convenient. Acts tells us that we need water baptism for the forgiveness of sins but you are able to relegate it to the "old" dispensation. The sole reason you are doing this is because you want to be justified by faith alone like Luther told you to. The words of Jesus must go because he speaks not of JBFA. Now I know whom you serve.

 

Don't you see what you are doing? You are making void the word of God in order to support your desire for a Gnostic salvation apart from anything material. No good works, no sacraments, no Eucharist, no festivals, no love, no kindness, no nothing. This is not Christianity. It is the devil's own parody of "spirituality" totally divorced from the material reality we live in. I pity you.

 

Our Lord, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul all saw the distinction between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism. Why can't Catholics?

 

Oh really. Scripture please!

 

Regarding the epistle of James, read James 1:1 and see to whom James addressed his letter.

 

This was addressed to the Christian Church because we are the true Israel. He was probably targeting observant Jewish Christians primarily, but his epistle was not restricted to them. It was written under divine inspiration and has been received by the Church as addressed to her as well. Are you telling me that this epistle was not addressed to Christians at all? The allusions to the Sermons on the Mount are so thick that this can only be considered a commentary on it. Once again, you try to make void the word of God by coming up with some excuse for ignoring the parts of the Bible that don't agree with Protestant systematic theology.

 

Regarding Romans 2, Paul speaks to both Jew and Gentile in the first part of the chapter, and to the Jew only beginning at verse 17.

 

So? The operative parts of the chapter are verses 6 and 13 and they teach that you must have good works to be saved. What it your problem? Now you want to relegate PARTS of St. Paul's epistles to the former dispensation because they don't say what Protestant systematic theology says they should?

 

Concerning the "hope" of eternal life, consult a Greek dictionary to see what that biblical word means in Titus 1:2 & 3:7; Rom. 5:2 & 8:24; etc., etc. In Strong's Greek/Hebrew and in Vine's Expository Dictionaries the word is shown to mean "confident expectation" or "anticipation with pleasure." Certainly not the "wishful thinking" kind of hope that you have regarding eternal life.

 

I see. And Strong and Vine's are INSPIRED? They are the equal of Scripture? I have a confident expectation, my friend not a false and sinful presumption like yours. I read the Scriptures and I take heed of St. Paul's warnings "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." (1Cor 9:27)

 

With reference to your ranting about my beliefs being blasphemous, well, at least I'm in good company. That was the accusation hurled against both Christ and Paul by the religious leaders of their day, and I count myself favored to stand with them against the so-called "ministers of righteousness" of our day.

 

First you deny Christ and his teachings. Now you want to liken yourself to him. Have you no shame! Has it ever occurred to you that some people accused of blasphemy ARE blasphemous? It is evident that you are not a serious student of Scripture but only someone trying to put forward an agenda. If you actually listened to the Scriptures and didn't try to "cut and paste" to make it say what you wanted it to, you would at least see that my interpretations are no less valid than yours. In fact my views do not ignore any part of Scripture and I try to harmonize all the parts that your commitment to Protestant systematic theology force you to forsake. you have given up the pursuit of righteousness with the false hope that you don't need to be righteous to be considered righteous. You must repent of this, for it is contrary to the Word of God.

 

And finally, as far as your invitation to repent and become a Roman Catholic, no thanks. Why put myself back under the curse of Roman Catholic law? I'll stick to trusting in Christ alone for my salvation, and living by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. I'll live by faith, as described by Paul in Galatians 2:20. I choose not to frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness can be gained under the tyranny of Romish law and tradition, then Christ did indeed die in vain. Why don't you turn to Christ in simple faith and trust in Him alone for your salvation?

 

Listen to you, Fred. You are a lost soul proclaiming your autonomy from the Church Jesus founded to go out on your own and "live in the spirit." There is no spirit out there for you. The holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. the only other spirit in the world is The Enemy. I am afraid that your antipathy to morality and to the Bride of Christ is a sign of demonic oppression. I pity you. You have some reason for not returning to the Church but you are not honest enough to admit it. Such arrogance, ignorance, and special pleading is born out of desperation, not confidence.

 

Search your heart and repent of that sin that lead you out of the Church. It is your only hope. And time is getting short. REPENT, please!