White Horse Inn- Roman Catholics and Justification Part 3

[msm1876]

At 5:39, he speaks of the CC having "a lot of leeway" for Prots and others disbelieving their doctrines. Perhaps so since Vatican II...but certainly not in the past. Does this statement strike you as "a lot of leeway?"

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctum

A general council has contradicted an Ex Cathedra statement from the pope.

[msm1876]

At 2:19 he speaks of the sacrament of penance...something that Trent says existed since the apostolic age...yet private confession to a priest didn't exist until the 600's! How then, could a garden variety Christian be certain of his right standing with God, in say, 200AD if this "grace" wasn't available to him at that point? And don't throw up a Tertullian quote about penance...that was a discipline that only the most egregious sinners had to go thru before being allowed back into fellowship.

[Studier101]

All sins are sufficient to condem a man.

[strangerindakosmos23]

Amen!!

[Studier101]

So what Mr. Sungenis is saying is that we must take Rome's word that we are justified against our feelings, versus God's word that we are justified agianst our feelings! It is not Rome that holds eternal life! Eternal life is in the Son of God!

[denyyourself20]

who are you referring to in this comment Cath? Who is putting their faith in a man? God certainly has sent us men that preach truth (Jer 3:15). Of course men fail, that is why you are to compare everything you hear to the scriptures and not to lean on your own understanding, only God's word. But just because one agrees with the teachings of say, calvin or luther does not mean that they are putting their faith in them. they simply are the ones preaching the gospel as it is in the scriptures

[RedBeetle]

Wouldn't you like to have heard that shill for the Catholic Church get interviewed by a real Calvinist, like Dr. John W. Robbins? Of course, Sungenis would never agree to that, he would get thrashed.

[denyyourself20]

Yes, of course...I would love to see anyone be interviewed by Dr. John Robbins.

[imromancatholic]

You don't know Sungenis. He's debated Zins, White and many other Calvinists. He didn't get thrashed.

[Studier101]

And white toasted him...

[CathPresbyter]

Yeah, Why not Dr. John Robbins "to thrash him." Put your faith in a man. Luther, Calvin, Gerstner, Sproul, Bahnsen, Henegraff, White, Walter Martin, Geisler, John Ankerberg, D.James Kennedy, Robert Morey, William Webster just to list a few. So is one from Apollos, or Cephas? Put your faith in a man's rhetoric, in his exegesis, in his knowledge. Why not add CT Russell, Joseph Smith, EG White to your list while you are at it?

Men fail! Try faith in God, not this particular man!

[PWitness]

This coming from someone who won't even debate *me*.

[RedBeetle]

Is that how you try and feel better about you being refuted? You lie to yourselves and others.

Bring your Catholic nonsense, and have the courage to stay to the end this time!

[PWitness]

Dude, you removed me as a friend from Facebook and told me not to contact you again.

I wasn't the one who didn't "stay to the end".

[RedBeetle]

You're not my friend.

I told you not to contact me again when you resorted to spamming me.

You were soundly refuted, could say nothing, so you resorted to irrational nonsense.

Any questions?

[PWitness]

*Spamming* you? I was demonstrating that you HADN'T refuted me. Criticizing Russell's philosophy proves nothing regarding his value as a historian.

You told me to kiss the Pope's backside. But *I'm* the spammer? *I'm* spouting irrational nonsense?

[RPenta]

@RedBeetle

How many "real" Calvinists are there?

[RedBeetle]

As you can hear, Catholicism has no comfort or assurance for their followers. No way of knowing if they have confessed all of their sins to a sinful priest. Compare Sungenis' hopeless theology to the Sovereign Grace theology of the first question and answer of the Heidelberg Catechism. Better yet, compare it to the fact that God promises to finish what He started (Philippians 1:6).

[RedBeetle]

I can't believe I sat through this entire interview of that Catholic heretic Sungenis and never once heard him challenged by the so-called Calvinist host of the "White Horse Inn."

It is a sin for a Calvinist, or anyone, to give a Catholic a nation-wide platform to vomit out his heresy.

[RedBeetle]

The "White Horse Inn" is just one example of what is wrong with Protestants in this nation today. They are a bunch of wimps who don't know their Calvinism, and who are afraid of offending someone. In the final segment, they will be kissing up to Mark Noll, another Roman Catholic disguised as a Protestant. Don't miss it!

[denyyourself20]

According to this guy's theology we go in and out of justification every second...I sin all the time, and there is nothing that (as a sinner with a depraved nature) catholicism can offer to bring me comfort. Only justification by faith alone and Christ's imputed righteousness can.

[denyyourself20]

And then they rely on their "feelings" to discern which sins are the big ones that are keeping them from justification- but we all know that the heart is deceitful and wicked beyond all things and feelings are NO WAY to be basing your salvation on.

[RedBeetle]

This is why Catholicism can give no comfort to their adherents. They know not the peace of Romans 5:1, for they are not justified.

This is why the 1st question and answer to the Heidelberg Catechism is still so amazing.

[imromancatholic]

Nope not how it works. John tells us "there is sin that as mortal". Most sins like stealing a cookie don't cause us to fall from grace. But robbing a bank is a bit different thing. We don't rob banks every day. Imputed righteousness does not get in to heaven. Snow covered dung needs to be purfied.

[RedBeetle]

Where does the Bible say that God disregaurds His Law? Oh, I know, maybe in the Book of James. There we read: "For whosoever shall keep the WHOLE LAW, and yet offend in ONE POINT, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).

Wow, I guess Luther was correct in concluding that James was not a strawy epistle--LOL! It completely refutes Roman Catholicism's antinomianism--LOL!

[imromancatholic]

RedBeetle. Your post is silly.  Luther first of all did not like James. Secondly Catholics don't believe that keeping the law gets you to heaven. We do believe that faith working through love does. Now tell me that's not biblical.

[RedBeetle]

@imromancatholic,

Was James included in Luther's translation? Yes; so you rhetoric is irrelevant.

Catholics teach one must do good works to finish what Christ started. This makes Christ but half a savior, but Catholics love to boast about how they did their part after "baptism." See Ephesians 2:8.

Finally, "faith working through love" is sanctification, not justification. The Gospel is not about us doing anything: the Gospel does not demand obedience.

You don't know the basics.

[imromancatholic]

He came around eventually.

Doing good works is Christ finishing what he started. I wish protestants like you would someday grasp the beauty of grace. God working in and through us to HIS glory. Read and engage your mind in Eph 3:20-21.

[imromancatholic]

We can quible about whether sanctification is a part of justification. Do you deny that it's by God's grace that we are sanctified. Why then do you feel the need to deny it's value in our salvation. Do say we don't need to be sanctified to enter heaven? One most certainly must "get saved" before works are of value. Before then I completely agree that works are of NO VALUE. That is the Catholic teaching. You don't know what I know. You distort Catholicism.

[imromancatholic]

Tell me RedBeetle, before one enters heaven does God ask "did you say a sinners prayer?" or does he say "well DONE good and faithful servant".

[RedBeetle]

You never replied to my previous post.

Are you retracting your lie about Luther?

Do you now agree that the Gospel is not about our obedience?

Your attempt to change the subject is an informal logical fallacy: it indicates that you are intellectually bankrupt on this issue.

[imromancatholic]

Jesus said "if you love me keep my commands". It's not about our obedience? Really? Luther didn't like James at least at one point in his life. That's a fact. I don't know that he ever really did. Show me where he wrote about it explaining it as scripture? You just love insulting and accusing don't you.

[RedBeetle]

Like I said, the Book of James was in Luther's translation, and he cited it with authority. You still have not retracted your lie. Your father the devil was also a liar.

Your grammar is terrible, so if you wish to discuss a verse, then please cite the proper verse and chapter. You may be Catholic, but you are not interacting with one lost in the Roman Catholic Dark Ages. I'll give you one more chance.

[imromancatholic]

When are you going to retract your lies. I at least am dealing with this video. It is you that goes off on a tangent about Luther and then accuses me of changing the subject. Do you want to talk about justification or not. That is the video, not Luther and James.

[RedBeetle]

imromancatholic wrote:

"When are you going to retract your lies."

imromancatholic also wrote:

"Do you want to talk about justification or not."

Do they not have question marks in Roman Catholicism? Take a class in basic grammar. No wonder you can't distinguish Law from Gospel!

[imromancatholic]

Funny. You still avoid direct questions. Do they not have answers in your religion, whichever of the 30,000 protestant denominations it is????????? :)

[RedBeetle]

You were caught lying about Martin Luther. You admitted your lie, but refused to retract it. You also failed to define the Gospel. Humiliated, you now try to change the subject again (this time to "denominations.")

When you can't define your terms, you lose. Having clearly lost this exchange, I want you to think about how easy that was for a Calvinist. I know you are not supposed to think in your cult, but ask yourself "Why does Calvinism have all the answers? Is Calvinism Christianity?

[imromancatholic]

Now that I have responded, tell me, can one enter heaven without sanctification or not? It's a simple yes or no question. Do you agree there are levels of sanctification and it happens over time. Then if one needs some sanctification, how much? If sanctification isn't neccessary for entry in to heaven then we don't have to be holy to enter heaven. Sanctification means "to be made holy". God says "NOTHING UNCLEAN SHALL ENTER".

[imromancatholic]

sigh.

[sarahmcc28]

@denyyourself20 James 2:24 " See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."