Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half

Ghosts · Bible and Fantasy (quora) · CMI is Bad on Church History · Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half with Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Catholics are from Mars, Protestants are from Venus
Keith Nester | 9.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCFchnW_EI

I

2:14 Did you immediately bring up Matthew 28:20?

Here is John Calvin's own comment on it:

Verse 20
Matthew 28:20.Teaching them to observe all things. By these words, as I have formerly suggested, Christ shows that, in sending the apostles, he does not entirely resign his office, as if he ceased to be the Teacher of his Church; for he sends away the apostles with this reservation, that they shall not bring forward their own inventions, but shall purely and faithfully deliver from hand to hand (as we say) what he has entrusted to them. Would to God that the Pope would subject to this rule the power which he claims for himself; for we would easily permit him to be the successor of Peter or of Paul, provided that he did not usurp a tyrannical dominion over our souls. But as he has set aside the authority of Christ, and infects the Church with his childish fooleries, this shows plainly enough how widely he has departed from the apostolic office. In short, let us hold that by these words teachers are appointed over the Church, not to put forward whatever they may think proper, but that they, as well as others, may depend on the mouth of the Master alone, so as to gain disciples for him, and not for themselves.

And, lo, I am with you always. As Christ gave to the apostles a commission which they were unable to discharge by reliance on merely human power, he encourages them by the assurance of his heavenly protection. For before promising that he would be with them, he began with declaring that he is the, King of heaven and earth, who governs all things by his power and authority.

The pronoun I must be viewed as emphatic; as if he had said that the apostles, if they wished zealously to perform their duty, must not consider what they are able to do, but must rely on the invincible power of those under whose banner they fight. The nature of that presence which the Lord promises to his followers ought to be understood spiritually; for it is not necessary that he should descend from heaven in order to assist us, since he can assist us by the grace of his Spirit, as if he stretched out his hand from heaven. For he who, in respect of his body, is at a great distance from us, not only diffuses the efficacy of his Spirit through the whole world, but even actually dwells in us.

Even to the end of the world. It ought likewise to be remarked, that this was not spoken to the apostles alone; for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world. It is as if he had said, that though the ministers of the gospel be weak and suffer the want of all things: he will be their guardian, so that they will rise victorious over all the opposition of the world. In like manner, experience clearly shows in the present day, that the operations of Christ are carried on wonderfully in a secret manner, so that the gospel surmounts innumerable obstacles.

So much the more intolerable is the wickedness of the Popish clergy, when they take this as a pretext for their sacrilege and tyranny. They affirm that the Church cannot err, because it is governed by Christ; as if Christ, like some private soldier, hired himself for wages to other captains, and as if he had not, on the contrary, reserved the entire authority for himself, and declared that he would defend his doctrine, so that his ministers may confidently expect to be victorious over the whole world.

Studylight : Comments : Calvin on Matthew 28
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/matthew-28.html

Obviously we get it, a sham church can fraudulently claim to be in succession of the Apostles.

But he kind of forgets to tell where the real Church that Christ really founded was 100 years before "he reformed Geneva."

This is why Pope Michael cannot be likened to Reformers. If you ask him where his Vatican in Exile was 100 years earlier, he'll answer that it was in the Vatican, it wasn't exiled yet, he will go to pains to show his doctrinal continuity with Popes Pius X, Benedict XV (who actually didn't legalise Heliocentrism in his encyclical on Dante!), Pius XI (up to when Pius XII starts making concessions to evolutionism).

He will go to pains to show the sedevacancy wasn't too prolonged (lately he has given some, if not total credence at least hypothetical validity to the "Pope Siri" thesis).

But Calvin, if you had asked him where his Church was 100 years before he wrote this, he would ... as here ... have typically changed the subject "you Papists can't be the Church, you have changed Christ's doctrine" in wildly accusing tones, and pretending the question is an attempt to stay clear of the question of our presumed guilt.

If you had asked me to give astrological interpretations of where Catholics and Calvinists are from, I'd have given the Mars to Calvin and the Venus to us Catholics.

II

3:13 Tip one : challenge him to prove "Bible alone" from Bible ... alone.

Tip two : show from Bible ... alone ... that Tradition, Magisterium, Indefectibility of the Church are all Biblical.

Tip three : challenge him to prove from Bible ... alone ... which books are in the Bible. Remind him that a Protestant Bible with 66 books and a Catholic Bible with "72 books or 73 if you count Baruch separately from Jeremiah" contradict each other on the number of books and each has chosen according to his confession. So, if any real and meaningful interconfessional conflict (as opposed to detail which might be adiaphoron) can be proven from Bible alone, this one too. But in Genesis you will not find a complete list of books from Genesis to Apocalypse, nor in Apocalypse, nor in any of the 66 books in between.

He might then try to prove from I Maccabees, which on his view is not in the Bible, that Maccabees are not Bible Books. First, that destroys his attempt to prove it by your challenge, second, this would exclude St. Luke and actually very many historic books of the Bible from being in the Bible - since the mode of knowledge used by hagioagraphers was not the mode of prophecy, especially not charismatic prophecy as in the terms of ... I actually cannot find the quote, but it was given more than once in debates earlier on.

Ah, here I found it: 1 Maccabees 9:27.

Now, your Protestants may tell you "the author of Maccabees says he is not a prophet" - but St. Luke in the prologue doesn't claim to be a prophet, he claims to be an investigating historian.

Therefore, the argument would deny the inspiration of St. Luke's Gospel.

While I found it, I also found a more thorough refutation than mine own here:

Shameless Popery : Does I Maccabees deny its own inspiration?
http://shamelesspopery.com/does-1-maccabees-deny-its-own-inspiration/

Presuming he will sooner or later go to Church history for OT canon, the one synod that explicitly shares his OT canon, namely Laodicaea, also has a defective NT canon, lacking the Apocalypse.

Rome and Carthage, first attested complete NT canons without additions would also have at least all of the RC books in the OT canon.

III

6:30 "really any differentiation from the Catholic position"

Erm, no. Greek Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Nestorians may be heretics, but they are not Protestant heretics.

Parallel Catholicisms may and in some cases are heretical, but they cannot be nailed down to Protestantism.

A Protestant position is one which denies the Mass is a sacrifice, identic to the sacrifice on Calvary. It goes against Hebrews 13:10, Malachi 1:11, and obviously Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec.

Even if Armenians deny the real presence (which they have not always done, this they took over from Tondrakians, who were further away from Catholicism than Protestants are, but not as far as Albigensians), they are not protestants, because they do not deny the Mass is a sacrifice.

IV

7:11 "Invisible Church" - as all there is to the Church - can be refuted from the Bible, because:

• the Church is given authority - if the group of people is invisible, it cannot exercise actual authority over me;
• the Church is to teach the nations - but a teacher can't be invisible;
• God specifically said He was not putting the lamp under a bushel.

8:05 Actually, Anglicans / Episcopalians, the largest body of Protestants, and Lutherans, and to some degree Methodists do have a sense of the Church as a visible teaching body.

CSL was an Anglican and when it came to changes in liturgy as compared to Book of Common Prayer he asked specifically that the bishops should not simply let changes of doctrine seep in with changed liturgy, but, if Anglicanism had been wrong on particulars, they should make appropriate public acts of repentance and of correction in doctrine.

Obviously, this is a bit naive about a body having English monarchy in lieu of papacy, as Gavin Ashenden recently found out. When English court is Politically Correct, Anglicanism has to play along with that. One of the reasons he converted.

But point remains, the bodies in the Porvoo Communion (or Borgå Communion) signatories having met in Finland, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists, do have more sense of the Church as a visible entity than mainstream U. S. American Protestantism. If, also, less than Catholics.

8:38 Actually, as he was Reformed, he cannot quite be pinpointed to the U. S. Congregationalist type of "churches" since Calvinism actually does recognise the local church as a visible symbol of the invisible church, but not only that, its synods between local churches as visible symbols of unity in faith.

The infamous TULIP was for instance invented by the Doordrecht synod in Netherlands.

T - Total Corruption (I have mentioned a few times, I don't drink TULIP Tea).
ULI - don't quite remember
P - Perseverance of the Saints = OSAS.

Either U was Unconditional or I was Inconditional Predestination, though. Meaning, when God predestines the elect He no wise takes into account good deeds either done or to be done by them. Refuted by Molina.

V

10:06 Liturgic detail : the deacon is not holding up a complete Bible, but a book containing the four Gospels in large print.

The lector then has another book with epistle texts.

VI

13:18 Yes, Bible alone autodestructs " 'sola scriptura' non in scriptura" as I like to say.

But more than that, Magisterium and Tradition are in the Bible.

Magisterium : qui vos audit me audit, quodcumque solveris in terra solutum erit in coelis, and a few more. Oh, I Tim 3:15 belongs here.
Tradition : II Thess 2:15, Christ's OT exegesis as per Luke 24:45 is not simply the OT, since Jews use most of its texts, but deny this exegesis, and it is not given except in few scraps in NT (which is shorter than OT and contains lots of other things), therefore it is available in Tradition, 2 Timothy 3:8 features Jewish tradition about identity of Magicians resisting Moses before the Pharao.

Any body teaching sola scriptura as it is properly understood (and Keith Nester gave the correct understanding so far) or denying Magisterium and Tradition auto-destroys.

Lutherans have a way around it saying "the magisterium and tradition of 1:st C. Church" is obligatory, but we only have remains of it in the words of NT canonic books, we can no longer access the whole body of that teaching. Catholicism adulterated it. Well, this cop out falls afoul of Matthew 28:20.

VII

13:46 It seems some "Catholic" Evolutionists (you know, people like at least possibly Garrigou Lagrange, definitely Cardinal Bea, Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin, Wojtyla, alias John Paul II, Ratzinger, alias Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, alias Francis) have this idea Genesis 3 fell down from heaven to Moses.

This is not the case with Catholic tradition. Here is Fr. George Leo Haydock on this issue. Last comment on Genesis 3, attached to his comment collection (he's often leaving the word to others) on last verse he comments on.

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

Haydock Commentary : Genesis 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

You can see why there is a real problem if you say man has existed 40 000 years? Or 200 000 years? Or since the earliest potassium argon dates for homo erectus, 500 000 years or even more?

If you still admit Adam and Eve as first men, period, nothing about "real" vs "just anatomically", but as first men, you definitely get a garbled tradition in Genesis 5 and in Genesis 11 or at least one of them, which, along with the much longer timespan, destroys the natural hope of a correct transmission of the Genesis 3 events.

If you take the men created in Genesis 1 as different from Adam and Eve, and the latter living only less than 10 000 years ago, but Neanderthals having lived or Homo sapiens sapiens having reached Australia well before that, then you have a problem on how to guarantee all men are descended from Adam and Eve and eligible for the redemption by Christ.

So, it's not just Protestants who have a problem here, it's also Evolution believing "Catholics".

On the note of Matthew 28:20, it can be mentioned the Roman curia and Cardinal Ottaviani were at the beginning of Vatican II so called "council" arguably strictly Young Earth Creationist, and it is also reflected in § 3 of Dei Verbum. The rest of the document doesn't contradict this, but offers only indirect cop outs.

VIII

16:05 I actually owe to some more or less hardcore atheists, some of them, and for others at least hardcore evolutionists, the idea that believing the Reformation and believing a Bible the Reformers had from a Church they described in the Reformation as a corrupt one didn't match up.

Catholic Church: the Gospel of St. Matthew is canonic
Luther: yes
Catholic Church: it contains the authorisation of papacy
Luther: no way, that's corrupt, that's so obviously not true, there is no way I can accept that authority

Would make a somewhat fun comic cartoon.

Charles S

Scripture isn't the problem.. It's your interpretation and understanding of the Scripture which you lack.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S First, you know I am Catholic, right? So, I'll suppose you are Lutheran or otherwise Protestant.

The guys of the Reformation, the "pre-cursors" not quite Protestant, namely Hussites, Waldensians and Lollards, where did they have the Bible from?

From the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic Church is corrupt, where does the trust in its Bible fit in with the distrust in everything else, like understanding of the Bible? It doesn't.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I would assume you were Catholic.. No, I'm of no denomination. Never have been. Good for the reformation. Don't care. It's incredible how much credit the Catholics take for the Bible, even though the Bible was well know before the Sun Worshiping Constantine formed it.. Can you get get bread from grapes? Of course not. (Gal 5:9) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. It almost like you actually wrote it. Newsflash! God wrote it.... It would be better to just say. I don't believe God's Word is sufficient than to mask it with "Where is "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible... You trust in Men... I'll stick to trusting my Lord Jesus was able to keep his Word intact, DESPITE the Catholic Church..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "It's incredible how much credit the Catholics take for the Bible, even though the Bible was well know before the Sun Worshiping Constantine formed it.."

Bible in 313. On your view transmitted by non-Catholics.

Bible in 1313 or beyond : definitely transmitted by Catholics. Even you would have to admit it as a historic fact.

I wasn't making the point that the Bible comes from the Catholic Church to its existence, I was making the point it came from the Catholic Church to them.
µ
And non-denominational is historically a byproduct of denominations arisen from Reformation.

@Charles S As to this:

"I'll stick to trusting my Lord Jesus was able to keep his Word intact, DESPITE the Catholic Church.."

According to His words in Matthew 28:20, He actually should be trusted to keep His word intact THROUGH a Church.

But the point is, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and therefore ultimately you, though that indirectly, would not have known the Gospel of Matthew is the word of God except for the Catholic Church teaching them that.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl *** But the point is, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and therefore ultimately you, though that indirectly, would not have known the Gospel of Matthew is the word of God except for the Catholic Church teaching them that. **

Hmmmm.. Whatever did the second century Christians do? They must have waited for the Catholic Church to teach them then eh??? Ha.. ha... Please. What's funny is, that institution has been around for a very long time, AND STILL doesn't understand the Gospel.....The only "Interpreter" you need for Scripture is the Holy Spirit.

(Joh 14:26) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I don't recall the Catholic Church being there when Jesus said this, do you? You rely on your man made traditions. You guys are the Pharisee with a Christian Veneer.. You've done the same things they did. They made up their own "Laws", and so did the Catholic Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "Whatever did the second century Christians do?"

They are not the point.

LUTHER waited for the Catholic Church to teach them.

And yes, second century Christians, unless themselves Catholic popes and bishops, like good Catholics, waited for Catholic popes and bishops to teach them.

A Gideon's Bible in cheap paperback was not available.

" don't recall the Catholic Church being there when Jesus said this, do you?"

Yes, I do. Peter, Andrew, James and John, and a few more and the beloved disciple were among the first Catholic clergy and they were the exact audience of these words.

@Charles S "The only "Interpreter" you need for Scripture is the Holy Spirit."

Too bad Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and a few more didn't get that.

In Lutheran and Anglican countries, Catholics were persecuted, as in the latter also Baptists, for hearing the Holy Ghost say sth else than professor so and so had got approved from synod then and there to spread in the "Church".

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl As far as Luther, Calvin, etc. I'm not sure how that relates to me. I hadn't heard about them until after reading the Bible. I don't follow man's doctrine, and I don't read commentaries. Some will have many works and not be saved and some will have no works and be saved... I do know Catholicism is works based, and therefore a false doctrine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "I hadn't heard about them until after reading the Bible. I don't follow man's doctrine,"

You were around when Matthew wrote? Or someone else told you about the Bible - right?

Then you follow some men's doctrine simply in accepting the Bible. Non-denominationals live at the edges of Protestant denominations, and all track back to Catholicism.

So, it was basically, though indirectly, Catholicism that taught you to take the Bible as God's word.

"Some will have many works and not be saved and some will have no works and be saved"

Depends on how the works are done and on persistence.

"I do know Catholicism is works based, and therefore a false doctrine."

Not works based as in what you argued against.

The point was made between Tyndale and his Inquisitor Latomus. About Romans 3.

Tyndale argued, when Abraham was justified, it neither needed works other than faith prior to justification, nor preparedness to works after justification.

James Latomus argued, right it didn't need other than faith works prior to justification, but it did need a preparedness for good works from then on.

Somewhat later, the Council of Trent made another point : "works of the law" in Romans 3 means keeping the kashrut and things of the ritual law. Obviously Abraham did not need that, since he was not yet circumcised, and still already justified.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** You were around when Matthew wrote? Or someone else told you about the Bible - right? **

Can't live in America, and not know the Bible exist.

** Then you follow some men's doctrine simply in accepting the Bible. Non-denominationals live at the edges of Protestant denominations, and all track back to Catholicism. **

Only if you believe the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God...

** Depends on how the works are done and on persistence. **

So in other words, your salvation has something to do with what YOU'VE done.. That's works based salvation, and proves my point.

** Not works based as in what you argued against.

The point was made between Tyndale and his Inquisitor Latomus. About Romans 3.

Tyndale argued, when Abraham was justified, it neither needed works other than faith prior to justification, nor preparedness to works after justification.

James Latomus argued, right it didn't need other than faith works prior to justification, but it did need a preparedness for good works from then on. Somewhat later, the Council of Trent made another point : "works of the law" in Romans 3 means keeping the kashrut and things of the ritual law. Obviously Abraham did not need that, since he was not yet circumcised, and still already justified. **

I wasn't referring to Romans 3...

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** Yes, I do. Peter, Andrew, James and John, and a few more and the beloved disciple were among the first Catholic clergy and they were the exact audience of these words. **

None of the Apostles were "Catholic"... You guys don't even know who the Rock is... Here's a hint: It's wasn't Peter...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

​@Charles S Whether the Rock is Peter, Jesus, or Both in Different Ways ...

Christ said very clearly in Matthew 28:20 that He would be with His Church every day, with the apostles and with the clergy succeeding them (you do get, that 72, 12 and Peter are three tiers of a clergy Jesus chose, I hope?).

This leaves you with the option:

• The Catholic Church is the Church of the Apostles as well as the Church in 313 and in 1313
• Another Church is (you haven't said which one)
• or Jesus has not kept His promise.

Obviously, even if your knowledge the Bible is God's word were tainted from Luther who was tainted from the Catholic Church, it could still be valid, if there was some other Church around all this time. Can you point to one?

The Orthodox could say it was they who remained the Church in 1053, not us. What was your Church back in 1053? Matthew 28:20 says you need one which was around then.

"Can't live in America, and not know the Bible exist."

Thirteen colonies had it from Anglicans and Catholics. Catholics are the guys you don't want, so Anglicans - who had it from Catholics.

"Only if you believe the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God..."

Not the least. I am only saying you receive this doctrine from men.

You don't have it because you lived on a desert island, God spoke to you and a Gideons' Bible was floating ashore from a sinking ship. You have it because you were told by some men, and America as in US indirectly brings you back to having it from the Catholic Church.

"So in other words, your salvation has something to do with what YOU'VE done.. That's works based salvation, and proves my point."

That's not how you argued first time over. Yes, when I die I'll be saved or damned according to what I have done. Says so in Matthew 25.

"I wasn't referring to Romans 3..."

OK, what exact Bible quote do you have to pretend works based salvation is a heresy?

Besides, that exact idea is a heritage from Reformation, so you are a hypocrite to pretend yourself independent of it, when you believe the Bible has 66 books and salvation has nothing to do with your works.

Which brings us back to : Reformers didn't receive the Bible from an already existing "Reformed Church", but from the Catholic Church.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Church is a body of believers in God's Word.. I'm not sure why you keep trying to put the Lord's church into a box, or building. He doesn't exist in temples made with hands. Believers are the temple. There is no centralized church in which God dwells. He dwells in the faithful believers in Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "There is no centralized church in which God dwells."

Centralised or not is not the point. I said nothing about any building, you brought that up.

The point is, one needs to be able to point to the Church one hears the Gospel from and one needs to be able to point to the Church which is the pillar and ground of truth (yes, that is in the Bible) and one needs to be able to point to a CHurch that fulfilled what you usually call "the great commission". Because God's invisible presence just within your own heart is not how you knew of the Bible, not how you make yourself subject to the prelates of the Church (yes, that is in the Bible too) and not how nations are taught as Christ mentioned in Matthew 28:20.

@Charles S "I'm not sure why you keep trying to put the Lord's church into a box, or building."

Our Lord Himself likens His Church to a building. Whoever of Him or St. Peter is the Rock, the Church is what is going to be BUILT on the Rock.

@Charles S "He doesn't exist in temples made with hands."

Actually He was in one more than once. Like perhaps His circumcision, certainly Purification, once at age 12, twice cleansing it from merchants.

He is still with His Church, and so still abides in buildings built by hands, through the Eucharist.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** Thirteen colonies had it from Anglicans and Catholics. Catholics are the guys you don't want, so Anglicans - who had it from Catholics **

I guess you forgot about the Puritans who were trying to convince the Anglican's to repent of their sinful ways. I'm sure there were plenty of Bible believing Christians that had no particular denomination

** Not the least. I am only saying you receive this doctrine from men. **

How else would God spread the Gospel?

** You don't have it because you lived on a desert island, God spoke to you and a Gideons' Bible was floating ashore from a sinking ship. You have it because you were told by some men, and America as in US indirectly brings you back to having it from the Catholic Church. **

We are back to the first answer I gave.

** That's not how you argued first time over. Yes, when I die I'll be saved or damned according to what I have done. Says so in Matthew 25 **

So you saved according to your works then, is that what you are stating?

** OK, what exact Bible quote do you have to pretend works based salvation is a heresy? **

Since the only man to ever fulfill the Law of Moses was Jesus Christ himself and since under the Old Law you break one, you break them all how were men saved in the Old Testament? Couldn't have been by Works of the Law. No man is justified by Works lest any man should boast. No need to pretend.. It stated numerous times Works doesn't save you.

(Mat 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 7:22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(Mat 7:23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

(Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(Eph 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Works are a manifestation of Faith in most, but not all... Different believers have different roles in the Body of Christ. Our salvation is justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

(Rom 4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(Rom 4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(Rom 4:6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
(Rom 4:7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
(Rom 4:8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

** Besides, that exact idea is a heritage from Reformation, so you are a hypocrite to pretend yourself independent of it, when you believe the Bible has 66 books and salvation has nothing to do with your works. **

No... That comes directly from the Bible itself. That's just not what you've been taught. The extra books you have in your Bibles have already been debunked. They contain historical inaccuracies. Therefore not from God.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

** Actually He was in one more than once. Like perhaps His circumcision, certainly Purification, once at age 12, twice cleansing it from merchants. **

Yes he was to fulfill the Law he wrote to show us who the Messiah was..

** He is still with His Church, and so still abides in buildings built by hands, through the Eucharist. **

(Act 7:47) But Solomon built him an house.
(Act 7:48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
(Act 7:49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

(Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "I guess you forgot about the Puritans who were trying to convince the Anglican's to repent of their sinful ways."

No, I didn't. Puritans started out as a more Edwardian than Jacobean branch of Anglicans, so, they too had it from the Catholic Church.

"I'm sure there were plenty of Bible believing Christians that had no particular denomination"

They start in Netherlandish towns with many denominations, i e Catholics and several Protestant ones. At 1600 at the earliest.

This means they too had it from the Catholic Church.

"How else would God spread the Gospel?"

He could have chosen another means, possibly, but didn't. And my point is, the means He chose was up to Anglicans and Puritans the Catholic Church.

"We are back to the first answer I gave."

Where you admitted having it from America, that is US, which brings me back to America's 13 Colonies having it from Anglicans, Catholics, Puritans, while some other parts Louisiana or Florida or Texas to California had it from the Catholic CHurch exclusively.

"So you saved according to your works then, is that what you are stating?"

When it comes to initial justification, I am saved without works done, but when it comes to my final salvation at death (if at all salvation) according to works done by grace from justification on.

"Since the only man to ever fulfill the Law of Moses was Jesus Christ himself and since under the Old Law you break one, you break them all how were men saved in the Old Testament? Couldn't have been by Works of the Law. No man is justified by Works lest any man should boast. No need to pretend.. It stated numerous times Works doesn't save you. "

The thing is, we can arrive from justification to a death in Christ without breaking God's Ten Commandments. As to the law of Moses, I agree we are not saved by it and that is exactly how Trentine Council understands Romans 3.

Matthew 7 actually states we need to work justice in order to have final salvation at death.

Ephesians 2:8 speaks of how we are initially justified, by grace and faith, 2:9 of how we aren't, by previous works and 2:10 on what condition, namely as to good works done from justification. From God's gift.

Romans 4, fresh challenge to me, but it seems forgiveness of sins is involved in it.

"Works are a manifestation of Faith in most, but not all..."

I agree a newly baptised child who dies within a year is not obliged to works in the usual sense.

Apart from that, you do not have the phrase from the Bible, you have it from men who had the Bible from the Catholic Church.

"That comes directly from the Bible itself."

Except it doesn't.

"That's just not what you've been taught."

It's what you have been taught and cannot prove to have from the Bible.

"The extra books you have in your Bibles have already been debunked."

The passive voice is used to avoid speaking of who atually did it. Who debunked them and how?

"They contain historical inaccuracies. Therefore not from God."

Criterium not bad if proven, but some have also "debunked" the historic accuracy of the the Gospels. So, not everyone "debunking" is worth listening to.

"Yes he was to fulfill the Law he wrote to show us who the Messiah was.."

Meaning He, God in the flesh, actually was in a temple.

"[cites Acts 7 and Acts 17 in refutation]"

St. Stephen is speaking of the Old Temple, which had fulfilled its role as a symbol.

St. Paul is speaking of pagan imaginations of statues working as sth like a portal.

The debate under VIII is now continued here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/time-to-give-charles-s-separate-post.html