Posted on 08/08/2025 3:48:54 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Five hundred years have passed since the Reformation began, and yet the influence of the Roman Catholic Church remains strong. I’m not referring to the mammoth oligarchy that seeks to dictate the lives of an estimated one billion people, but rather its continuing influence upon churches outside its realm, including many that adhere to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
While attending Talbot Seminary, I wrote my master’s thesis on Roman Catholic Justification in the Light of Scripture. In my study, I discovered that Catholicism’s key departure from Scripture was its firm insistence that God’s justification of sinners happens at the end of their life. This teaching contradicts what Paul wrote in Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In other words, God justifies us at the moment of our regeneration (see also Titus 3:4-7). Why is it so important to affirm this clear biblical truth?
It’s because the error of placing our justification at the end of one’s life has crept into evangelical churches in various forms that continue to grow in popularity, as well as negate the glorious hope embedded in the Gospel. It does so by. . .
Undoing the Finality of Our Salvation
I’m not aware of when Catholic theologians first decided that God’s justification of the sinner happens at the end of one’s life, but by the time of Reformation, it had become deeply entrenched in the church’s dogma. This teaching provided the church with the means to control the lives of its members from birth to the grave.
As a result, Catholics can never be sure of their salvation since their final destination depends upon their obedience as well as adherence to the church’s sacraments up to the time of last rites. Under such a scenario, how could anyone be certain of the final outcome of their faith?
Scripture tells us a much different story. Not only does it reveal that God justifies us at the moment of our regeneration, but it also provides us with the security of our hope that Catholicism kills. When God justifies the sinner, He declares that person not guilty of all his or her sins, past present, and future.
The word for “justify” in the Greek comes from the law courts of Paul’s day; it depicted a judge declaring the accused “not guilty” of their crimes. For us, it’s the legal declaration of our righteousness that comes solely through faith by grace. God declares us innocent solely because Jesus bore the punishment for our sins on the cross; His blood covers all of our iniquity. Romans 8:1 states the finality of God’s proclamation of our righteousness, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Later in Romans 8, the apostle elaborates on the permanence of God’s verdict: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Romans 8:32-34).
For all of us in Christ Jesus, our justification is a done deal. God, who is not bound by time, looked at our entire life and declared us not guilty of all our sins. Who can possibly overturn His verdict? No one can provide Him with evidence that He didn’t already know about.
The belief that one can lose their salvation, or walk away from their faith, reflects the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, which regards it as a process that’s not fully settled until death. The only way to deny the finality of our salvation is to either say that someone can reverse God’s verdict, which is impossible, or somehow repackage the Catholic teaching of when God credits our account with His righteousness. If it happens at the time of our rebirth, it’s an absolute done deal.
Subjecting the Believer to a Works Mentality
The Roman Catholic error regarding justification empowers the church to enforce obedience whether it be to its traditions, its sacraments, or Scripture. Do we see this same works mentality today outside of the Catholic faith? We do.
I have experienced various forms of legalism in my life. Such teachings deceive believers into thinking they must earn favor with God, which is something they already fully possess via their secure righteous standing before Him, i.e., their justification.
Legalism reverses the order of chapters in the book of Ephesians. Instead of encouraging adherence to Paul’s instructions based upon one’s secure righteous standing before God, the works mentality begins with the commands as the way to assure the believer of his or her favor in the Lord’s sight. Paul never intended for chapters 4-6 of Ephesians to be the means of obtaining God’s approval, but rather the result of our permanent “holy and blameless” standing before God (Ephesians 1:3-14).
Once our focus shifts away from Christ and what He has done for us to how we should live, we lose the joy that comes from our security and the peace from knowing we will surely meet Jesus in the air in the future. The works mentality, popular in many Evangelical churches, is a remnant of Catholicism that spotlights our behavior rather than our glorious hope in Jesus’ appearing.
Adhering to the False Teaching of Replacement Theology
The refusal of a great many churches today to recognize the prophetic significance of Israel also mirrors Catholicism’s teaching on Bible prophecy.
Replacement Theology, or amillennialism, is the longstanding belief of the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine, a fifth century theologian, popularized the teaching that the church is the new Israel, which replaced the church in God’s prophetic program. He denied the future restoration of Israel and applied the Lord’s many promises to do so to the church, albeit spiritually.
Because Israel’s miraculous reappearance as a nation on May 14, 1948, contradicted its long held beliefs, the Vatican refused to recognize Israel as a nation until the end of 1993, a full forty-five years later. Why the delay apart from their realization that Israel’s astounding rebirth refuted their longstanding amillennial beliefs?
What does today’s popularity of Replacement Theology in Bible-believing churches have to do with a biblical understanding of justification? I provide a full answer to this question in my previous article: Can God Change His Mind about Israel? Or About Us?
Based upon Romans 11:28-32, I explain how God’s unfailing mercy lies at the heart of His continuing faithfulness to us as well as to Jacob’s descendants. He will not renege on any of His promises to His people, whether it be to the nation of Israel or to us as New Testament saints. Chapters 9-11 in the book of Romans were not a rabbit trail in Paul’s line of thought, but rather a critical part of it as he showed how the promised future restoration of Israel demonstrates the Lord’s unfailing mercy not only to the Jewish nation, but also to all justified saints, which He proclaimed in Romans 8:31-38.
Identifying the Church as God’s Kingdom
From its inception, the Roman Catholic Church believed it was God’s physical kingdom on earth and hence a political entity, which directly results from its adherence to Replacement Theology, which teaches that the church is just such a realm. Its role as a governing power during the Dark Ages has long since faded, but not this exalted view of itself.
The Vatican is officially the “Vatican City State.” This came about via the 1929 Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy through which it became an officially recognized independent governing state. The US sends an ambassador to the Vatican, just like it does for other governing entities.
Unfortunately, the Reformation didn’t change the perception of the church as God’s corporal kingdom on earth. Many churches, deeply steeped in amillennialism or its offshoots, continue to teach that Jesus is now reigning over the nations in fulfillment of such passages such as Psalms 2 and 46 as well as Revelation 20:1-10.
During the past few decades, Dominion Theology has grown exponentially in popularity. It asserts that the church will bring about millennial conditions on the earth and rule over it before Jesus’ returns. Is this not a variation the long ago kingdom aspirations of the Vatican?
The Bible teaches that as New Testament saints; we are heirs to a kingdom rather than current possessors of it (Ephesians 1:12-14; James 2:5). Paul couldn’t have been more clear when he said: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Corinthians 15:50). When Jesus appears, He will transform our lowly bodies into ones like His, immortal and incorruptible (Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:51-55). He will make us fit to inherit His kingdom that’s coming to the earth.
The Bible never identifies the church as a kingdom, but rather describes it as the “body of Christ” with Jesus as its Head. The picture of body life in Romans 12:3-8 is most certainly not that of a kingdom, but rather of functioning entity were all its members enjoy an equal standing. Furthermore, the role of the leaders of a kingdom differs radically from the humble servant leadership Jesus prescribed for His Church (Mark 10:42-45; see also 1 Peter 5:1-5).
Why does this matter? It signifies that we are not now enjoying the glories of God’s promised kingdom on the earth as those who adhere to Replacement Theology claim. The good news is that in the future, we will participate in God’s spectacular kingdom on earth with immortal bodies in a realm devoid of wars, government corruption, overt wickedness, and injustice.
Making One’s Obedience and Feelings the Validation of Salvation
I heard a pastor say this in his Sunday sermon, “You are okay if you love the Lord.” No, no, no, no!! The Bible says that all those in Christ are “okay” because the Lord loves us!
Looking to one’s feelings, or even obedience, as the validation of one’s salvation yields the same fruit as the rigors of Catholicism: it traps believers in the same web of insecurity that obstructs their walk with the Lord and turns their focus away from their joyous blessed hope in Jesus’ appearing.
If it’s true that God’s justification of the sinner happens at the moment of our redemption (Titus 3:4-7) and is by its nature wholly irreversible (Romans 8:1 and 26-39), and Scripture teaches that both are true, the Bible must be the sole rock upon which we must base our assurance of eternal life, not our feelings, our love for the Lord, nor our obedience to some standard.
Our assurance of eternal life comes from what Scripture says about us as New Testament saints, i.e., our justification though faith alone by grace.
A biblical understanding of what happens when God justifies us counters the hope-killing remains of Roman Catholicism in today’s churches that rob believers of the joy that comes from knowing the certainty of their salvation. Scripture frees us from the works mentality that results from thinking we can lose our salvation, walk away from our faith, or must work to keep ourselves within God’s favor and love for us.
Sadly, these vestiges of Roman Catholicism persist in many churches outside its realm. Not only do they breed insecurity and a works-based validation of our hope of eternal life, but in many cases these places of worship also dismiss the biblical hope that we will reign with Jesus in His glorious kingdom, one that will include a restored Israel. Our hope in Jesus’ appearing and what happens afterward is not just dry theology, but something that breathes life into our souls each and every day.
If you have not yet placed your faith in Jesus or are unsure of your salvation, please see my article, Jesus is the Only Path to Eternal Life. In it, I explain the saving message of the cross and how you can know that you belong to the Savior.
your error why your error is so glaringly wrong your error: Biblical as you separate Baptism from faith, contradicting the new testaments unity why your error is so glaringly wrong: You cite Acts 10:43–47 to claim faith purifies the heart before baptism. But in Acts 15:8–9 (which you reference), Peter says God “purified their hearts by faith,” yet Cornelius and his household are still baptized (Acts 10:47–48). Scripture explicitly links baptism to regeneration: Titus 3:5 calls it the “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit”; Peter says baptism “saves you” (1 Peter 3:21); and Jesus requires being “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). Acts 2:38 commands, “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Your separation of faith from baptism contradicts the NT’s unity (Mark 16:16, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3–4). your error: you never read what the early Christians, you know the ones who KNEW and learnt from Apostles, believed. They didn't believe what you hold why your error is so glaringly wrong: Early Christians unanimously taught baptismal regeneration. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18.2, c. 107 AD) calls baptism “the washing that makes us free from sin.” Justin Martyr (First Apology 61, c. 150 AD) describes baptism as “regeneration… illumination.” Tertullian (On Baptism 1, c. 200 AD) says, “Baptism is the vehicle of regeneration.” No early Father supports your faith-before-baptism purification as excluding the sacrament. your error: linguistic ignorance. D'you think the Bible was originally written in KJV Anglish? Your link seems to think so, eh? why your error is so glaringly wrong: Greek, katharisas (“purified”) in Acts 15:9 is aorist, indicating a completed action through faith, but not excluding baptism as its instrument (Acts 22:16, “Be baptized and wash away your sins”). Baptisma in NT Greek means immersion into Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3–4), not a mere symbol. Your reading ignores this your error: your own argument fails in internal logic why your error is so glaringly wrong: If faith alone purifies before baptism, why command baptism for forgiveness (Acts 2:38)? Your view renders baptism optional, contradicting the apostles. It's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) to pit faith against its sacramental expression.
Catholics teach salvation is a gift of grace (Ephesians 2:8–9, Romans 6:23), not earned. Merit is God crowning His own gifts (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6), as Scripture says God rewards works done in grace (Matthew 25:34–40, 1 Corinthians 3:8, Hebrews 6:10). James 2:24 explicitly says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Your faith-alone view ignores this and Galatians 5:6, “faith working through love.”Trent (Session VI, Chapter XVI) condemns Pelagianism (salvation by human effort), affirming grace as the source. The CCC (1992) you quote says justification is “conferred in Baptism,” but this is by grace, not works (Titus 3:5). Early Fathers like Cyprian (Epistle 73.11, c. 250 AD) affirm baptismal justification by grace. Your site’s “contrast” is a strawman, fabricating a works-righteousness Catholicism that doesn’t exist.
In Latin, Trent’s “mereri” (merit) means deserving reward from grace, not earning (from merces, wage, Romans 4:4). Greek misthos in NT (Matthew 5:12, 1 Corinthians 3:14) shows God rewards faithful works without denying grace. Your misreading conflates merit with Pelagian earning.
If salvation is faith alone, why does Scripture warn of judgment by works (Romans 2:6–8, 2 Corinthians 5:10)? Your position leads to antinomianism, where works are optional, contradicting Jesus (Matthew 7:21). Logically, if grace enables works, merit is grace’s fruit, not competition.
Justification is by grace (Romans 5:1), conferred in baptism (Acts 22:16, “Be baptized and wash away your sins”). The CCC (1992) and Trent (Session VI, Chapter VII) teach this inner transformation by God’s mercy (Titus 3:5), not human effort. Romans 6:4 says baptism unites us to Christ’s resurrection, making us “alive to God.” Your denial separates faith from baptism, ignoring Peter’s teaching (1 Peter 3:21).Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.21.1, c. 180 AD) says baptism “regenerates” by the Spirit. Origen (Commentary on Romans 5.9, c. 246 AD) affirms baptism washes sin. This is apostolic, not a medieval invention. Your claim “failing to find” support is willful blindness.
Greek dikaiōsis (justification) in Romans 4:25 means being made righteous (dikaios), not just declared (Romans 5:19). Trent’s “interior sanctification” echoes this infused righteousness. Your imputed view ignores dikaioō’s transformative sense (Romans 6:7).
If justification is forensic declaration, why does Scripture say we’re “made righteous” (Romans 5:19)? Your view renders baptism symbolic, contradicting NT commands (Acts 2:38). Logically, if grace justifies, it transforms (2 Corinthians 5:17).
you just keep repeating the same false statements over and over again. They won't win a la Goebbels
Purgatory is mercy for the saved, as “nothing unclean” enters heaven (Revelation 21:27), and fire purifies works (1 Corinthians 3:13–15, “saved, but only as through fire”). Your examples—the thief (Luke 23:43) and Paul (2 Corinthians 5:8)—don’t disprove it; they’re saved by grace, and purification could occur instantaneously (Philippians 1:6). Scripture doesn’t detail timing.You can see the Early Christians believed this. Tertullian (On the Soul 58, c. 210 AD) prays for the dead. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and Resurrection, c. 380 AD) teaches purification after death. This is pre-Trent, apostolic. Your “imagined” claim ignores history.
Greek purgation in 1 Corinthians 3:15 (kata-kaio, “burned up”) implies cleansing, not destruction. Your “good enough” caricature twists “merit” into Pelagianism.
If imperfect believers enter heaven immediately, why Revelation 21:27? Your imputed righteousness makes purification unnecessary, but Scripture says sin’s effects linger (Romans 7:15–20). Logically, grace completes what it starts (Philippians 1:6), via Purgatory.
2 Corinthians 5:8 (“absent from the body… at home with the Lord”) refers to the saved, but doesn’t exclude purification, as 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 shows post-death cleansing. The thief (Luke 23:43) is promised “Paradise” (possibly Abraham’s bosom, Luke 16:22), but full heaven awaits resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17).Augustine (City of God 21.26) affirms purification for the imperfect saved. Your “no Purgatory” is a 16th century novelty.
The Greek endomēnai (“at home”) in 2 Corinthians 5:8 implies ultimate presence, not instantaneous. Paradise (Luke 23:43) is paradeisos, a waiting place (2 Corinthians 12:4).
if no purification, why warn of fire (1 Corinthians 3:15)? Your view contradicts holiness requirements (Hebrews 12:14),
CCC 1264 acknowledges sin’s effects (Romans 7:23), but Purgatory cleanses them (1 Corinthians 3:15). Your denial ignores sin’s lingering impact (Psalm 51:5). Origen (Homilies on Leviticus 8.3, c. 240 AD) teaches post-death expiation. The Greek epithymia (concupiscence, James 1:14) shows sin’s inclination persists, needing purification. If grace eradicates all effects at conversion, why ongoing struggle (Romans 7:15)? Your view is utopian, not biblical.
Your arguments crumble under scrutiny: Scripture supports Catholic soteriology (James 2:24, Titus 3:5), history confirms it (Ignatius, Augustine), linguistics reinforces it (estin, sarx), and logic demands it (grace transforms, not declares). Your sites are echo chambers of error, promoting a deformed gospel that severs faith from sacraments and tradition (Acts 2:42). The NT Church was Catholic—baptizing for regeneration (Acts 2:38) and offering the Eucharist as Christ's Body (1 Corinthians 11:24). Ditch the anti-Catholic bias and investigate the early Christian lives —they’ll lead you home (Matthew 16:18).
I know what Rome says the rosary is, but what do the apparitions say it is? Even as a former catholic, I had never heard of anything called signal graces, till I got on FR. What on earth, are signal graces? Who gets signaled?
Which includes" as you separate Baptism from faith" when i actually clearly joined them together, and you imagine that despite regeneration preceding baptism in Act 10, yet you relegate that to being a claim, despite it being a fact, while ignoring that baptism can be the occurrence when one confesses the Lord Jesus. as I stated baptism does.
Then your resort to uninspired writings from certain ancients, which are not the definitive God-inspired record of what the NT church believed!
And them you proceed to ignore the distinction I made btwn conversionary justification and the gift of eternal life, and that of meriting rewards for service, as well as merit meaning only God warrants credit. And that from your own sources the reality is that Purgatory Is Needed Because Catholics Must Be âÂÂGood Enoughâ to be with God.
More of the same deception from you follows, which I am not going to take more time exposing (and yes, stiff arthritic typo-fingers means much copy and paste, and hours to for my last reply) on this basically dead thread, as indeed you warrant being ignored, as one who must resort to deceptive means to so defend your church-god.
May God grant you âÂÂrepentance to the acknowledging of the truth.â (2 Timothy 2:25)
Scripture teaches salvation is a gift of grace (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8–9), but faith is not inert—it works through love (Galatians 5:6) and is completed by works (James 2:22). Merit is God rewarding His own grace at work in us (Philippians 2:13, “God who works in you”), not earning salvation. Matthew 25:34–40 shows inheriting the kingdom through works of mercy, done in grace. Your “merit = works salvation” is a strawman, ignoring Romans 4:4 (merit as wage from grace) and Hebrews 6:10 (God rewards labor in love).
Baptism is regenerative by grace (Titus 3:5, “washing of regeneration”), forgiving sins (Acts 2:38, “Be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins”). Peter says baptism “saves you” (1 Peter 3:21), and Jesus requires being “born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). Acts 10:43–47 shows the Spirit before baptism, but Cornelius is still baptized (Acts 10:48), not making baptism optional. Your faith-before-baptism purification ignores Romans 6:3–4 (baptism unites us to Christ’s death).
Eternal life is a gift (Romans 6:23), but Scripture rewards obedience (Matthew 16:27, “repay each according to his conduct”). Hebrews 5:9 says Christ “became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” Works merit rewards, not initial justification (1 Corinthians 3:8). Your faith-alone view ignores James 2:26, “faith without works is dead.”
Purgatory is mercy for the saved (1 Corinthians 3:15, “saved, but only as through fire”), cleansing what grace started (Philippians 1:6). Revelation 21:27 requires purity for heaven. The thief (Luke 23:43) and Paul (2 Corinthians 5:8) are saved by grace, but purification could be instantaneous for them—Scripture doesn’t specify timing (Hebrews 9:27). Your “good enough” caricature ignores that Purgatory is for the already saved.
Baptism is a grace-filled sacrament (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21), not a ritual earning salvation. Faith and baptism are united (Mark 16:16). Your “imagined” claim dismisses Jesus’ command (Matthew 28:19).
Concupiscence remains after baptism (Romans 7:23), but grace overcomes it (Romans 6:14). Purgatory cleanses remnants (1 Corinthians 3:15). Your “play now, pay later” mocks God’s mercy.
The Early Church was Catholic—sacramental, hierarchical, and grace-filled. Your “faith alone” is a deformation, leading to assurance without perseverance (Hebrews 3:14). Investigate the Fathers—they’re Catholic.
Your claim that Acts 10:43–47 and 15:7–9 affirm regeneration by faith alone, preceding baptism, and that my reference to Cornelius’ baptism only supports your point, is a gross misreading of Scripture as in your general theology.
You cite Acts 10:43–47, where Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, and Acts 15:7–9, where Peter says God “purified their hearts by faith.” But Acts 10:47–48 explicitly states, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” If faith alone regenerated, why was baptism necessary? Acts 2:38 commands, “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Titus 3:5 calls baptism the “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” 1 Peter 3:21 declares, “Baptism… now saves you.” Jesus Himself says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Your claim that faith alone purifies ignores that baptism is the normative means of regeneration (Romans 6:3–4, Galatians 3:27), with Cornelius as an exception, not the rule. Scripture unites faith and baptism, not pits them against each other.
The early Church unanimously taught baptismal regeneration, demolishing your faith-alone fantasy. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 18.2, c. 107 AD) calls baptism “the washing that makes us free from sin.” Justin Martyr (First Apology 61, c. 150 AD) writes, “This washing is called illumination, because those who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding.” Tertullian (On Baptism 4, c. 200 AD) states, “Baptism itself is a corporeal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.” The Didache (7.1, c. 90 AD) links baptism to forgiveness, reflecting apostolic practice. No early Father supports your view that faith alone regenerates before baptism; they saw baptism as the sacramental act where faith receives grace (Acts 22:16). Your position is a 16th-century Protestant invention, alien to the NT Church.
Your reliance on Acts 15:9 (“purified their hearts by faith”) ignores the Greek context. The verb katharisas (purified) is aorist, indicating a completed action, but doesn’t exclude baptism as the means of purification, as Acts 10:48 shows Cornelius was baptized post-faith. In Acts 2:38, baptisthētō (be baptized) is imperative, linked to aphesis (forgiveness) and receiving the Spirit. Titus 3:5’s loutron (washing) explicitly refers to baptism, with anagenēseōs (regeneration) as its effect. John 3:5’s hydatos (water) clearly denotes baptism, not a symbolic act. Your attempt to isolate pistis (faith) from baptism ignores the NT’s sacramental language, where faith is expressed through baptism (Mark 16:16).
If faith alone regenerates, why does Scripture consistently command baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21)? Cornelius’ case (Acts 10:43–47) is exceptional—God’s outpouring of the Spirit to show Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:8)—yet baptism remains necessary (Acts 10:48). If baptism is merely a sign of prior regeneration, why baptize at all (Acts 8:36–38)? Your view creates a false dichotomy between faith and baptism, contradicting Jesus’ unified command: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). Logically, baptism is the normative channel of grace, where faith receives regeneration (Romans 6:4), not a redundant ritual.
Your error is ripping faith from its sacramental context, imposing a sola fide lens on Acts 10 and 15 that the apostles never taught. You claim Peter’s “purified by faith” excludes baptism, but Acts 10:47–48 and 2:38 show baptism as the act where faith receives forgiveness and the Spirit. This aligns with the early Church (Cyprian, Epistle 73.11, c. 250 AD) and refutes your claim that regeneration precedes baptism. Your position fractures the NT’s holistic view of salvation, ignoring that faith works through sacraments (Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12).
Your repeated denial of baptismal regeneration (and Catholic soteriology) as “imagined” or “works-based” ignores the NT Church’s practice (Acts 16:33) and early Christian consensus (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.21.1, c. 180 AD). By dismissing baptism’s role, you reject Christ’s command (Matthew 28:19) and the Spirit’s work through it (Titus 3:5). Your faith-alone mantra is a Reformation-era distortion, not the apostolic Gospel, which unites faith, baptism, and works in grace (James 2:24, Ephesians 2:10).
Your claim that “Rome” disobeys Acts 2:38 by not requiring repentance and whole-hearted faith for baptism is a blatant misrepresentation
The Catholic Church faithfully upholds Acts 2:38’s call to “repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” integrating repentance, faith, and baptism as the apostles taught
Acts 2:38 explicitly commands, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The Catholic Church obeys this, teaching that baptism requires repentance and faith for adults (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1247–1248). For infants, baptism imparts grace (Titus 3:5, John 3:5), with faith nurtured by the community (Mark 10:14), as salvation is a gift, not earned (Ephesians 2:8–9). Your citation of Acts 8:36–37 (the Ethiopian’s faith) supports adult baptism requiring faith, which Catholics practice in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), but doesn’t negate infant baptism, seen in household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 33). Peter’s sermon doesn’t limit baptism to adults (Acts 2:39, “for you and your children”).
Your error is imposing a faith-first restriction, ignoring the NT’s inclusive practice (1 Corinthians 1:16).
The early Church, far from disobeying Acts 2:38, followed it rigorously. The Didache (7.1–3, c. 90 AD) requires catechesis and repentance before adult baptism, mirroring Catholic practice. Origen (Homilies on Luke 21, c. 240 AD) defends infant baptism, citing apostolic tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Augustine (On Baptism 4.24, c. 400 AD) affirms baptism forgives sins for all, rooted in Acts 2:38. Your claim that “Rome” deviates is baseless—early Christians baptized adults with faith and infants with parental commitment, exactly as Catholics do.
Your faith-alone lens is a 16th century invention, alien to the apostolic Church.
In Acts 2:38, Greek metanoēsate (“repent”) and baptisthētō (“be baptized”) are imperatives, linked by kai (“and”), showing repentance and baptism as unified acts for forgiveness (aphesis hamartiōn). The phrase “for the forgiveness” (eis aphesin) indicates purpose, not mere symbolism. Acts 8:37’s “I believe” (absent in some manuscripts) applies to the Ethiopian’s adult context, not a universal rule excluding infants. Your interpretation forces pistis (faith) to precede baptisma in all cases, ignoring loutron (washing) in Titus 3:5, which denotes baptism’s regenerative effect.
Your linguistic cherry-picking distorts the text’s plain meaning.
Your accusation that “Rome” disobeys Acts 2:38 is more of your fiction, projecting sola fide onto the apostles. Catholics require repentance and faith for adult baptism (CCC 1253), and infant baptism extends grace (John 3:5), as practiced by the early Church (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.4, c. 180 AD).You ignore Scripture’s unity of faith, repentance, and baptism (Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16) and the tradition that clarifies it (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Your error is a myopic faith-alone dogma, ignoring the NT’s sacramental reality.
Which includes" as you separate Baptism from faith" when i actually clearly joined them together, and you imagine that despite regeneration preceding baptism in Act 10, yet you relegate that to being a claim, despite it being a fact, while ignoring that baptism can be the occurrence when one confesses the Lord Jesus. as I stated baptism does.
Then your resort to uninspired writings from certain ancients, which are not the definitive God-inspired record of what the NT church believed!
And them you proceed to ignore the distinction I made btwn conversionary justification and the gift of eternal life, and that of meriting rewards for service, as well as merit meaning only God warrants credit. And that from your own sources the reality is that Purgatory Is Needed Because Catholics Must Be “Good Enough” to be with God.
More of the same deception from you follows, which I am not going to take more time exposing (and yes, stiff arthritic typo-fingers means much copy and paste, and hours to for my last reply) on this basically dead thread, as indeed you warrant being ignored, as one who must resort to deceptive means to so defend your church-god.
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
He does put Scripture front and center.
I posted #263 for you.
And the first three chapters of Revelation prove it.
Call no man father
Your response doubles down on a warped caricature of Catholic soteriology, claiming that Rome teaches justification by baptism as a “pure act of grace” followed by meriting eternal life through works, misquoting Trent and the Catholic Encyclopedia to paint Catholicism as Pelagian.
Thus is a tired, Goebbels like repeated tactic, a distortion that ignores Scripture, twists historical sources, and collapses under linguistic and logical scrutiny. Your affirmation of faith and works as “cause and effect” is a half-truth that fails to grasp the Catholic harmony of grace, faith, and works
ON THE CONTRARY YO YOUR FALSE CLAIM, Catholics teach justification by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9), with baptism as the normative means of receiving this grace (Titus 3:5, “washing of regeneration”; John 3:5, “born of water and Spirit”). Acts 2:38 commands, “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins,” uniting faith and baptism. Works are fruits of grace (Ephesians 2:10, “created in Christ Jesus for good works”), not the cause of initial justification. James 2:24 explicitly states, “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” showing works complete faith (James 2:22).Your claim that Catholics “merit eternal life” misrepresents merit as God rewarding His own grace (1 Corinthians 3:8, Matthew 25:34–40), not earning salvation.
Contrary to your false claims, Trent (Session VI, Canon 1) condemns Pelagianism, stating justification is by grace, not human effort. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s “formal justification” (you quote) means grace transforms us inwardly (Romans 5:19, “made righteous”), not that we earn salvation. Augustine (On Grace and Free Will 8, c. 427 AD) says, “When God rewards our merits, He crowns His own gifts.” Your selective quoting distorts Trent and ignores early Fathers like Justin Martyr (First Apology 61, c. 150 AD), who affirm baptism’s regenerative grace.
In Trent’s Latin, mereri (merit) denotes reward by grace, not earning (from merces, wage, Romans 4:4). Greek misthos (reward) in 1 Corinthians 3:14 and Matthew 5:12 shows God rewards works done in grace. Your “pure act of grace” misreads ex opere operato, which means Christ’s grace works through sacraments, not human merit (Titus 3:5).
If faith alone justifies without works, why does Scripture judge by works (Romans 2:6–8, 2 Corinthians 5:10)? Your cause (faith) vs. effect (works) dichotomy splits what Scripture unites (Galatians 5:6, “faith working through love”). Logically, if grace justifies, it produces works (James 2:17), and merit is God’s gift, not Pelagian earning.
You quote Trent (Session VI, Chapter XVI) and Canon 32 to claim Catholics merit eternal life itself, implying works-based salvation. Trent teaches initial justification is unmerited (Romans 5:1), with works as fruits (James 2:24). Canon 32 affirms merit for “eternal life” as a reward for perseverance (Hebrews 10:36), not earning salvation. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s “personal justice” reflects infused righteousness (Romans 5:19), not self-righteousness. Your distortion ignores Matthew 16:27, where Jesus repays according to deeds.Trent (Canon 1) anathematizes justification by human works alone. Clement of Rome (1 Clement 32, c. 96 AD) says, “We are justified by faith… yet by works of holiness.” Your quotes rip Trent out of context, ignoring its grace-first stance, echoed by Cyprian (Works and Almsgiving 1, c. 250 AD)
Latin iustitia in Trent (justification) aligns with Greek dikaiōsis (Romans 4:25), meaning transformation, not imputation. Your “merit eternal life” misreads mereri as Pelagian, when it’s grace-enabled (Philippians 2:13).
You claim faith is the cause and works the effect, but Scripture integrates them. James 2:22 says Abraham’s faith “was completed by his works.” Galatians 5:6 defines justifying faith as “working through love.” Hebrews 11:8–10 shows faith and obedience as one act. Your separation ignores that faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26).Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.17.5, c. 180 AD) teaches faith and works together, rooted in grace. Your dichotomy is a modernist invention, not apostolic teaching
Greek pistis (faith) in James 2:24 includes action (erga), not mere belief. Your “cause vs. effect” splits what NT Greek unites.
If works are mere effects, why judge believers by them (2 Corinthians 5:10)? Your view undermines perseverance (Hebrews 3:14), making faith a one-time act, not a lived reality.
Your dismissal of my point—that your faith-alone stance risks antinomianism, ignoring James 2:26 (“faith without works is dead”)—as a “fallacious assertion” revealing “ignorance or deception” is a weak dodge that avoids engaging with Scripture. Your refusal to respond further, claiming others “need help,” is a cop-out that sidesteps the biblical evidence exposing your errors.
You label my antinomianism charge “fallacious,” but James 2:26 is crystal clear: “Faith without works is dead.” James 2:17 reinforces, “Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Your faith-alone view, which downplays works as mere “effects” (as you’ve argued), risks antinomianism—implying faith excuses ongoing sin. Scripture demands works as faith’s fruit: Galatians 5:6 says, “Faith working through love” justifies; Matthew 25:31–46 judges by works; and Romans 2:6–8 declares God “will render to each according to his works.” Ephesians 2:10 states we are “created in Christ Jesus for good works.” Your error is severing faith from works, contradicting the apostles’ holistic Gospel (Hebrews 6:10, 1 Corinthians 3:8).
The early Church rejected antinomian tendencies, affirming faith and works. Clement of Rome (1 Clement 32, c. 96 AD) writes, “We are justified by faith… yet by works of holiness.” Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.17.5, c. 180 AD) teaches that faith and obedience are united for salvation. Your faith-alone stance, dismissing works as non-essential for justification (despite James 2:24, “justified by works and not by faith alone”), is a Protestant invention, alien to the apostolic Church that practiced baptism (Acts 2:38) and Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23–29) as grace-filled acts.
This is seen in the very language of the Bible. In James 2:26, Greek pistis (faith) without erga (works) is nekra (dead), meaning ineffective for salvation. Your “cause and effect” dodge (faith as cause, works as effect) misreads pistis as mere belief, when NT Greek uses it to include obedient action (Romans 1:5, “obedience of faith”). Galatians 5:6’s pistis di’ agapēs energoumenē (faith working through love) shows faith’s vitality through works. Your separation of faith and works ignores this linguistic unity, twisting Scripture to fit sola fide.
Calling my antinomianism charge “fallacious” is baseless. If faith alone justifies, regardless of works, then sin becomes inconsequential (Romans 6:1–2, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!”).
Your view logically leads to antinomianism, where faith without obedience suffices, contradicting Jesus: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom” (Matthew 7:21). Catholics affirm grace initiates faith (Ephesians 2:8), but works complete it (James 2:22).
Your refusal to engage suggests you can’t defend your position against Scripture’s clear demand for works (2 Corinthians 5:10).
Oh, so https://peacebyjesus.net/ is your page that you quote from. Si you take it personally, ignoring the arthritis you state, when I point out the numerous errors and sheer lies in that site, eh?
Your claim that your webpage (https://peacebyjesus.net/the_lord%27s_supper.html) “extensively refutes” my argument for the Catholic Eucharist’s Real Presence is a hollow boast built on selective exegesis, historical ignorance, and logical fallacies.
Your page argues the Eucharist is a symbolic memorial, citing figurative language in Scripture. Yet Jesus declares, “This is my body” (Luke 22:19, Greek estin, present tense, indicating real identification, not “represents”). In John 6:51–56, He says, “The bread that I will give is my flesh (sarx)… My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” The Greek sarx (physical flesh) and trōgō (chew, John 6:54–58) denote literal consumption, not metaphor, unlike “I am the vine” (John 15:5). The disciples’ shock and departure (John 6:60, 66) confirm a literal understanding, which Jesus doesn’t soften. Paul warns that unworthy reception “is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29), implying a real presence, not a symbol. Your metaphorical view ignores 1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing… is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread… is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Your page dismisses transubstantiation as a medieval invention, but early Christians unanimously affirmed the Real Presence. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, c. 107 AD) writes, “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins.” Justin Martyr (First Apology 66, c. 150 AD) says, “We receive it not as common bread or common drink, but… the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.18.5, c. 180 AD) calls it “the body and blood of Christ.” The Didache (14, c. 90 AD) treats the Eucharist as sacred, not symbolic. Your claim that early Christians saw it as metaphorical is baseless— and you provide zero evidence for this claim
Your page asserts transubstantiation lacks NT support, citing Passover as symbolic. Yet Luke 22:19–20 transforms the Passover: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The Greek anamnēsis (remembrance, Luke 22:19) carries sacrificial weight (Leviticus 24:7, Hebrews 10:3), not mere memory. 1 Corinthians 10:16 confirms participation (koinōnia) in Christ’s Body and Blood, not a symbol. Hebrews 13:10’s “altar” implies a sacrificial act, fulfilled in the Eucharist. Your page ignores John 6:53: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
Your page claims the NT Church saw the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, but every early source contradicts this. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 22.1, c. 350 AD) describes the Eucharist as “the true Body and Blood of Christ.” The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) assumes its sacrificial nature. Your “memorial” view is a Zwinglian invention (16th century), not apostolic. <\b>
Your page’s appeal to “figurative language” (e.g., “I am the door”) misapplies to sarx (John 6:51) and sōma (Luke 22:19), which denote physical reality. Koinōnia (1 Corinthians 10:16) means real communion, not symbolic. Your Aramaic speculation lacks evidence, as the Peshitta aligns with Greek estin.
If the Eucharist is a symbol, why the severe penalty for misuse (1 Corinthians 11:27–30)? Your view nullifies the NT’s sacrificial language (Hebrews 10:10), rendering the Eucharist a hollow ritual, against Christ’s institution (Matthew 26:28).
Your page’s broader context (linked to your soteriology page) implies the Eucharist ties to a works-based salvation. Catholics teach salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9), with the Eucharist as a sacrament of grace (John 6:56, “Whoever eats my flesh… abides in me”). Works are fruits (James 2:24, “justified by works and not by faith alone”), not the cause. Your faith-alone view ignores Galatians 5:6, “faith working through love.” Ignatius (Romans 7.3, c. 107 AD) links the Eucharist to salvation, not works-righteousness. Trent (Session XIII) affirms the Eucharist as Christ’s Body, not a human merit. Your caricature is pure fiction.
Your page’s errors are legion: (1) misreading estin and sarx as metaphorical, against their literal force (Luke 22:19, John 6:55);Your page's false view is a 16th-century deformation, not the apostolic faith preserved by the Church (Matthew 16:18).(2) inventing a symbolic NT Eucharist, ignoring Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus;
(3) projecting Protestant sola scriptura onto the apostles, who taught orally (2 Thessalonians 2:15); and
(4) dismissing transubstantiation as medieval, when it clarifies NT teaching (1 Corinthians 11:24).
As found in Rev. chapters 1-3
Your response is a desperate attempt to salvage your crumbling narrative, recycling tired distortions and anti-Catholic propaganda from your webpages. I once thought you actually had points but then I read through your voluminous text and see them as wordy nonsense eith no basis, just repeated ad naueseum Goebbelesque
You dodge my points with baseless accusations of “delusional assertions,” misrepresent Catholic teaching, and lean on revisionist history to prop up your sola scriptura fantasy.
Your links are a house of cards, riddled with errors and selective citations that collapse under scrutiny
For too long your long winded posts on fr gave the impression of solidity, but once a person bothers to read through them once sees them as all has
You assert that only the apostles spoke with divine inspiration, unlike popes and councils, and that Scripture is the sole “assured infallible word.” Yet 2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands, “Hold fast to the traditions… whether by word of mouth or by letter,” placing oral tradition on par with written Scripture. 2 Timothy 2:2 instructs Timothy to entrust teachings to others, showing ongoing apostolic authority. Acts 15:28 (“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”) demonstrates the Church’s Spirit-guided discernment, a model for later councils (John 16:13). Matthew 16:19 gives Peter the keys to bind and loose, a promise of ongoing authority, not limited to apostles. Your claim that only Scripture is infallible ignores Christ’s promise to guide His Church (Matthew 28:20).The early Church relied on oral and written tradition. Ignatius (Smyrnaeans 8:1, c. 107 AD) says, “Wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church,” affirming ecclesial authority. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.4.1, c. 180 AD) upholds tradition from apostles through bishops. Your denial of magisterial authority contradicts the early Church’s practice, seen in councils like Nicaea (325 AD).
Greek paradosis (tradition, 2 Thessalonians 2:15) means authoritative teaching, oral or written, not secondary. Your “inspired apostles only” claim lacks NT support—parakletos (John 16:13) promises ongoing Spirit guidance.
Your links (peacebyjesus.net/ancients_on_scripture.html#2, beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com) claim the canon was disputed until Trent (1546), citing Luther’s doubts. Scripture doesn’t self-identify its canon (John 21:25, “many things not written”). The Church, as “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), discerned it. Luke 24:27 shows Jesus using Scripture, but not defining its scope—human authority was needed.that webpage you link to is filled with lies and errors as proven above
The Council of Rome (382 AD), under Pope Damasus, listed the 73-book canon, reaffirmed at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). Disputes (e.g., Jerome on deuterocanonicals) were resolved by the Church, not individual scholars. Luther’s rejection of books like James and deuterocanonicals was novel, lacking early precedent. Your links exaggerate pre-Trent debates, ignoring widespread acceptance (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.8, c. 397 AD). Trent formalized, not invented, the canon.
If the canon wasn’t settled until Trent, how did the early Church function (Acts 2:42)? Your links’ reliance on Luther’s “non-binding opinion” admits he defied tradition, contradicting 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
You claim the NT Church wasn’t Catholic, citing James’ “conclusive judgment” in Acts 15. Peter’s speech (Acts 15:7–11) settles the doctrinal issue of Gentile inclusion, while James offers pastoral directives (Acts 15:13–21). Peter’s primacy is clear: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18–19); “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15–17); leading at Pentecost (Acts 2:14). James’ local role in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9) doesn’t negate Peter’s universal authority (Acts 1:15–26). Your page (peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.htm) is revisionist nonsense, ignoring the NT’s hierarchical Church (1 Timothy 3:1–5).You keep posting links to your own page, nah, that may have impressed people before but niw we know the website is full of lies, holes and errors
Ignatius (Romans 4:3, c. 107 AD) links Rome’s primacy to Peter. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.2) says Rome, founded by Peter and Paul, is the Church’s standard. The early Church was Catholic—sacramental, episcopal, Eucharistic (Justin, First Apology 66). Your “non-Catholic” NT Church is a myth you are propounding
Greek ekklēsia (Church, Matthew 16:18) denotes a visible, unified body, not a loose collective. Kēphas (Peter, rock) underscores his foundational role. Your “James trumps Peter” ignores protos (first, Matthew 10:2) for Peter.
If the NT Church wasn’t Catholic, why the apostolic succession (2 Timothy 2:2) and councils (Acts 15)? Your page’s “deformation” narrative lacks evidence, projecting 17th century individualism onto the Early Christians.
You cite John 20:30–31 (“these are written that you may believe… and have life”) to claim Scripture alone suffices for salvation. Yet John 21:25 says, “There are many other things Jesus did, which are not written.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands holding to oral tradition. Acts 2:42 shows the Church lived by “apostles’ teaching,” not Scripture alone. Your view ignores the Church’s role (1 Timothy 3:15)The early Church taught orally and sacramentally (Clement, 1 Clement 42, c. 96 AD). The canon emerged from tradition (Council of Rome, 382 AD). Your “Scripture only” is a 16th-century invention.
Greek gegraptai (written, John 20:31) doesn’t exclude oral teaching (paradosis, 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
the Greek word gegraptai (written) in John 20:31 does not exclude oral transmission; rather, it emphasizes that the specific signs of Jesus's life and miracles performed by his own hand that were intended to be believed and lived by are recorded in the writing of the Gospel, which includes both spoken tradition and the eventual written text.
Gospel of John is itself a written record of the things Jesus did and taught, including the oral traditions that pre-dated the writing of the Gospel.
and let’s summarize the numerous errors in your links that you have posted over and over through the years.
Most, like me until a few months ago, didn’t read them, intimidated by the volumes of text.
But once I did I realised those voluminous texts are pure gaff and riddled with errors and lies.
Here are some
Peacebyjesus.net/ancients_on_scripture.html#2: This page falsely claims the canon was unsettled until Trent, exaggerating disputes. Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) affirmed the 73-book canon, accepted by Augustine (On Christian Doctrine 2.8). Luther’s rejection of deuterocanonicals was novel, not “supported” by mainstream Catholics. The page’s selective citations (e.g., Jerome) ignore his submission to Rome.
Beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com: This blog’s defense of Luther’s canon doubts is biased, omitting that his views (e.g., questioning James) were outliers. It misrepresents pre-Trent debates as chaos, when the Church’s authority resolved them (1 Timothy 3:15).
Peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.htm: This page’s “non-Catholic” NT Church is a fantasy, ignoring Ignatius’ Catholic structure (Smyrnaeans 8:1), Justin’s Eucharist (First Apology 66), and Irenaeus’ apostolic succession (Against Heresies 3.3.1). It’s revisionism, not history.
Your links are anti-Catholic propaganda, not scholarship. Drop the delusions and face Scripture and admit that the NT Church was Catholic—sacramental, hierarchical, guided by Peter (John 21:15–17
Finally, just 3 weeks ago you posted the same links to your previous arguments through the years and when I started reading through them and pointing out the errors you said I shouldn’t dig up the past and should have pity on someone with arthritic hands who was terribly busy.
That changed quickly.
Those aren’t opinions but facts. Your claims are biblically false.
You made the claim that James and Jude were Jesus’ half-brothers, natural children of Mary and Joseph, implying Mary had other children after Jesus. Scripture does not support this.
The “brothers” of Jesus (e.g., James and Jude, Matthew 13:55) are never called sons of Mary in the Bible. In Jewish culture, “brothers” (Greek: adelphoi) often referred to cousins or kin (e.g., Lot as Abraham’s “brother,” Genesis 14:14, despite being a nephew).
Your error assumes a modern nuclear family model, ignoring biblical and cultural context.
Your assertion that Mary and Joseph had a “normal sex life” after Jesus’ birth lacks scriptural evidence. Matthew 1:25 states Joseph “knew her not until” Jesus was born, but “until” (heōs) in Greek doesn’t imply later relations (e.g., 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal childless “until” death).
Jude’s epistle (Jude 1) identifies him as “brother of James,” not Mary’s son. Your claim lacks evidence and assumes a non-biblical family structure.
Then, Marco, you put the same nonsense deflection about Peter vs James.
You argue James, Jesus’ “half-brother,” was head of the Jerusalem church, not Peter. Scripture shows Peter as the leader of the apostles (Matthew 16:18–19, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”; Luke 22:31–32, strengthen your brethren). In Acts 15:7–11, Peter’s speech at the Council of Jerusalem decisively settles the Gentile question, showing his authority. James, a leader in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9), offers practical directives (Acts 15:13–21) under Peter’s doctrinal lead. Galatians 1:19 calls James “the Lord’s brother,” but not head; Peter’s primacy is clear (Acts 2:14, 1:15–26)
The Catholic view of Mary’s virginity, Peter’s primacy, and James’ role is grounded in Scripture (Matthew 1:25, 16:18–19, Acts 15) and early Christian historians (Jerome, Irenaeus).
Your mind is already made up, about James and other things, so you are not willing to try to find out why all these other people disagree with you. JUST INVESTIGATE. Don’t make up your mind, until you do.
Perhaps you ought to check the facts Matthew 16:18–19, Luke 1:34, or early Christian texts like Jerome’s Against Helvidius.
No weak links.
The fact is that James is not the son of Mary, the mother of God Jesus.
The mention of “Mary the mother of James and Joses” in the crucifixion and resurrection accounts, coupled with “Mary the wife of Clopas,” provides the fact you are ignoring that this James is the son of a different Mary, not Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and Luke 24:10 refer to a “Mary the mother of James and Joses” or “Mary the mother of James.” This Mary is present at the crucifixion and resurrection scenes. John 19:25 introduces “Mary the wife of Clopas,” who some scholars identify as this same Mary, distinct from Mary, the mother of Jesus.
If the “Mary the mother of James and Joses” is Mary, the wife of Clopas, then James (likely James the Less or James the younger) is not the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of another woman named Mary.
John 19:25’s mention of Mary, wife of Clopas, as the “sister” of Jesus’ mother (possibly a sister-in-law or close relative) suggests that James could be her son, making him a cousin or relative of Jesus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.