Let's ask why the foundation of conservatism is that man is flawed.

Is there a bald-faced assumption on the part of conservatism, or is there a reason for it?

I'll let you answer that, but as for the Christian conservative worldview, it is the fact that man is in a fallen state, since the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden. All men are in a fallen state and this is the reason man is flawed. He's not really flawed, but fallen. Fallen is the correct word, on the Christian conservative worldview.

Man's nature is evil.

Think the Founders has Islam in mind when they wrote that? What were the Founder's general thoughts on Islam? Do you think they envisioned an America enriched by the introduction of Islam into our society?

Or do you think that when the Founders talked about the free exercise of <religion>, that they meant Christianity and the various denominations, without any of those denominations suffering oppression?

Put another way, do you think the Founders saw Islam as equal to Christianity and that America would one day be a place where Islam can flourish and inform our society in terms of culture, morality, custom and theology?

Or do you think the Founders saw Christianity as practiced in England, throughout Europe and America, as the true religion, and conversely viewed Islam as the superstitious religion of the slaves, of backward colored, uncivilized savages living deep in the jungle, or those who pirated our ships off the coast of Africa?

<Wtpy>, let's pretend it's 1776 right now and look at it like that.

Refugees from religious repression prior to the English Civil War, Royalists following their defeat and then more Puritans following the Restoration comprised a significant portion of immigration to North America in the mid to late 17th century. All would have remembered the devastation they fled and been eager not to repeat it.

Yes, as Paul said, saved by grace not works.>

Correct, so you're in agreement with the teaching of the Catholic Church on this doctrine as explained in the Catholic Productions presentation by Dr. Brant Pitre which I linked to in my post.

So why then did you subsequently post the following drivel?

<Big Pawn: <diceman: <optimal play: Why do so many protestants come up with different interpretations of various bible passages?>>

Because they lack a consistent hermeneutic.

Paul addressed this when he told Timothy to be sure to rightly divide the word. People weren't rightly dividing the word, even as the NT was being written. Those people turned into the Catholic church, blending the works based program for Israel (the Law, the Circumcision) with the gospel of grace.

The Catholic Church started with the Galations. Paul tried to correct them, but some of them remained beguiled and the Catholic Church was born from there.

Part of it is Peter's fault. Even after he had met with Paul and learned of how Jesus revealed to him a Great Mystery, the dispensation of the gospel of grace, he still went on and forced Paul's converts to be circumcized. He wouldn't sit with the Gentiles when eating and so forth, carrying on the law as before, mixing works with grace.

Paul had to reprimand him for that and Peter conceded that he was wrong to do it. But it just goes to show that this idea of mixing good works with grace in pursuit of salvation is enticing to the nature of man, even to Peter, and that from the very beginning, indeed, even before the beginning, there was works + grace heresy.

This heresy has been followed by some people since before the beginning, as it were, throughout the centuries.>

Of course the 40,000 different protestant denominations lack a consistent hermeneutic.

That's why there's 40,000 of them!

And where did you get the idea that Peter learned from Paul "the dispensation of the gospel of grace" as a "Great Mystery" which he (Peter) had been unaware of?

And when was Peter forcing Paul's converts to be circumcised?

Of course this was a topic discussed on this forum just recently, however Dr. Pitre uses a different parable from Jesus to make the same point.

He who has ears, let him hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yes...

You talked <around> my questions but didn't answer them directly. I didn't ask if the Founders were thinking about the English civil war, but you answered that question instead of the questions I actually posed to you.

Maybe if I numbered them, it would help you focus?

1. Think the Founders has Islam in mind when they wrote that?

You can answer yes or no, as it is a valid yes or no question.

2. What were the Founder's general thoughts on Islam?

3. Do you think they envisioned an America enriched by the introduction of Islam into our society?

That is also a yes or no question. You don't have to spend a lot of time answer this one. A yes or no will suffice.

4. Or do you think that when the Founders talked about the free exercise of <religion>, that they meant Christianity and the various denominations, without any of those denominations suffering oppression?

I was disappointed that you were not able to answer this one in your reply. Try again?

5. Put another way, do you think the Founders saw Islam as equal to Christianity and that America would one day be a place where Islam can flourish and inform our society in terms of culture, morality, custom and theology?

6. Or do you think the Founders saw Christianity as practiced in England, throughout Europe and America, as the true religion, and conversely viewed Islam as the superstitious religion of the slaves, of backward colored, uncivilized savages living deep in the jungle, or those who pirated our ships off the coast of Africa?

This heresy has been followed by some people since before the beginning, as it were, throughout the centuries.>>

Because Catholicism teaches a works-based salvation and has an entirely different Jesus, this being due to the heresies introduced by the Judiasers in the first century, even in Galatia.

<Of course the 40,000 different protestant denominations lack a consistent hermeneutic.>

Correct.

<And where did you get the idea that Peter learned from Paul "the dispensation of the gospel of grace" as a "Great Mystery" which he (Peter) had been unaware of?>

The "Mystery of Christ", the dispensation of grace was given to Paul, not Peter, by Jesus.

Paul had to meet with Peter in the Jerusalem council because Peter was still teaching the law, the circumcision. Peter admitted that Paul said some things that were "hard to understand", and that refers to the mystery revealed to Paul by Christ, including such things as it's okay to eat with the gentiles and other such works based acts that were a part of the works-based program the Jews had followed for many centuries. Imagine it all being overturned at once. It was "hard to understand" even for Peter.

After this, Paul had to confront Peter for returning to the law, not sitting and eating with the Gentiles, because Paul had reverted to the works-based Jewish program rather. Peter accepted Paul's rebuke and repented.

Peter had a hard time leaving behind the program for Israel, the Law, the Circumcision, the works, and switching over to the simple, non-works-based program for the gentiles, which is grace alone and not works.

The Judiasers were basically the first Catholics because they rejected the grace alone salvation, which began when Christ revealed this, his Mystery, to Paul, ushering in the dispensation of grace.

No, I wrote that sloppily. I meant to be of the circumcision, as in, he wouldn't let go of the law.

It was the Judiasers who were bent on circumcising Paul's converts in a literal sense.

Catholics have a "grace-plus" salvation and this is not Christian. Grace <plus> works. Grace <plus> sacraments. Grace <plus> purgatory.

It's these additions to grace that the Catholics have in common with the Galatians who had been fooled into believing another gospel, which Paul had to correct them on.

The Catholics have added all kinds of stuff to the simplicity of the saving gospel of Christ. Their heresy began in the 40s and was addressed by Paul when it was in its infancy. But we can see that it was hard to give up the "works" and even Peter had a hard time with it.

It's because they lack a consistent hermeneutic.

A Catholic will grow up a Catholic. They have this Catholic worldview as their foundation. Then they pick up the bible and study verses here and there, all over the bible, and interpret them in an ad hoc manner, meaning they shoehorn the interpretation of the verses to conform to Catholicism. An example of this is when <optimal play> gave us that parable of the man who was in debt to explain purgatory. The connection isn't even vague, yet because he is looking for some way, any way to justify purgatory (it's not in the bible), he is forced to interpret it this way. That is ad hoc.

The same holds true for the many protestant denominations. They grow up going to a church, learn the basics of what it means to be a Christian, and then interpret the bible in an ad hoc manner, so as to make sense of their worldview, which they think is correct.

So what's missing? What's the key then to correctly interpreting the bible?

The key is to understand the overarching storyline, the plot, of the bible. One must understand this in order to identify plot twists in the bible. Only in this way can we have the context necessary for the right interpretation of the bible. Otherwise, people cite their proof texts for their beliefs and their opponents cite other proof texts to show them why they're wrong and each has their own set of proof texts, picking and choosing verses out of context from all over the NT, or even the whole bible.

Paul said we must <rightly divide> the word of truth. This is because there are things to divide. There are different sections that are divided up. We are to understand these divisions so we can rightly divide the word by these divisions.

If you don't do this, then the bible appears to be full of contradictions. Atheists don't rightly divide the word, so they think they see contradictions. Same with the Muzzies and Jews. They do not rightly divide the word. They don't know how. They have no overview of the whole bible and God's different programs for His people and the world at different times, which are divided up.

Paul sees that many were confused, trying to mix works with grace, mixing the program God had with Israel with the program he gave to us through Paul, for the Gentiles. Paul saw the confusion. He knew what the problem was and so he instructed Titus to <rightly divide>.

Not rightly interpret.
Not rightly translate.

But to rightly divide the word. The Judaizers and others who were mixing the Jewish program with grace were confused because they weren't rightly <dividing> the word. They didn't recognize the <divisions> that were to be divided between. They were mixing the old program for the Jews with the new program for the Gentiles, unaware of the plot twist that occurred in the bible at that time.

If you do not rightly divide the word, you will not be able to make sense of the bible and there will be many denominations.

Otherwise, you will have opposing verses that you will have to try to explain away, and explanations are not satisfactory.

You'll have one guy quoting, <O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?> James 2:20

And another guy quoting, <For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.> Eph 2:8-9

Contradiction? Apparently yes. But in reality, no.

Rightly divide. James is written to the Jews! Many scholars believe James was the first bit of the NT to be written, maybe in the 40s and probably in the 50s. The Jews were works-based! Even Jesus told the Jews when he walked among them that he was here to fulfill the law, not to abolish the law. Jesus told his disciples and those he healed to do <Jewsish things> like present yourself to the priest and how him you are clean.

We must rightly divide.

Paul wrote Ephesians after James. Paul was given a <NEW> gospel, the gospel of grace! It was a mystery until Christ gave it to <Paul>. Christ didn't talk about salvation by grace in the four gospels, but Paul's books are all about <grace>.

When one rightly divides the word, as Paul said, then the apparent contradictions melt away.

Yes. Not <except> by faith, but <through faith>.

Paul tells us,

<For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.> Ephesians 2:8

Plain speaking.

<For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,> (only Paul received this Gospel) <how that Christ died for our sins…> I Corinthians 15:3

<And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures> I Corinthians 15:4

We are to <believe> the gospel found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. That is our faith, to believe that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

Our salvation has zero to do with our works, good or bad. Salvation is God's gift to us. We do not earn it or contribute to it in any way, shape or form.

Paul tells us in Romans 4:5,

<But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.>

Work not, but believe. Faith and faith alone is God's requirement.

<Therefore it is OF FAITH, that it might be BY GRACE...> Romans 4:16

Paul wants to make clear that it is by grace through faith that we are justified and not by works, lest any man boast of his good works.

<Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by THE LAW OF FAITH.

Therefore we conclude that a man is JUSTIFIED BY FAITH WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.> Romans 3:27-28.

Stating that some work in addition to faith in Christ is a requirement for justification is a lie against the truth of the gospel and makes for a lying gospel.

I asked your 6 questions.

You replied in my forum with words on the page, but you did not directly answer my six questions.

Let me guess: you are <too buys> to answer those 6 questions?

Let me guess: I'm not "the boss of you" so you don't HAVE to answer my questions?

We all know why you didn't answer my 6 questions directly, even after I numbered them for you. Funny how you feel compelled to return here and write <something> but you just can't bring yourself to actually answer the 6 questions I asked.

You could have just not come back here and ignored it, but you didn't. You felt somehow compelled to come back and respond but refused to answer directly my 6 questions.

Let the Lurking Reader see that I have asked the perfect questions, and this is the reason that liberal <wtpy> doesn't want to answer them. His pride won't let him just slink away, so he came here to say <SOMETHING>, but he just didn't answer the 6 questions directly.

Let the lurking reader see that when you stand up to the libs, they always, always, always back down.

<and has an entirely different Jesus> Different from whose?

<this being due to the heresies introduced by the Judiasers in the first century, even in Galatia> Which the Catholic Church denounced.

<The "Mystery of Christ", the dispensation of grace was given to Paul, not Peter, by Jesus.> Please provide Scriptural evidence to support this assertion.

<Paul had to meet with Peter in the Jerusalem council because Peter was still teaching the law, the circumcision> Wrong.

The Jerusalem Council was precipitated by some Jewish Christians who were teaching the law and circumcision, but the Bible does not indicate they were from Peter. More likely they were from James (the Lord's brother).

At the Jerusalem Council, Paul's opponents were from the party of the Pharisees, but it was Peter's decision which determined the outcome in favour of salvation by grace and in support of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:7-11).

<Peter admitted that Paul said some things that were "hard to understand", and that refers to the mystery revealed to Paul by Christ, including such things as it's okay to eat with the gentiles and other such works based acts that were a part of the works-based program the Jews had followed for many centuries. Imagine it all being overturned at once. It was "hard to understand" even for Peter.> The reference is to 2 Peter 3:16 which is in the context of the end times, not the Gospel of Grace.

<Paul had to confront Peter for returning to the law, not sitting and eating with the Gentiles, because Paul had reverted to the works-based Jewish program rather. Peter accepted Paul's rebuke and repented.> The reference is to Galatians 2:11-14 which is in the context of Peter reacting to the arrival of men from James, not a firmly held belief in the law or circumcision.

<Peter had a hard time leaving behind the program for Israel, the Law, the Circumcision, the works, and switching over to the simple, non-works-based program for the gentiles, which is grace alone and not works.> Unsubstantiated assumption.

<The Judiasers were basically the first Catholics because they rejected the grace alone salvation, which began when Christ revealed this, his Mystery, to Paul, ushering in the dispensation of grace. They continued to mix the old dispensation, the works-based covenant with Israel with what Paul had been teaching. They tried to mix works grace right there in 45 AD.>

Quite apart from your confused theology and ignorance of early church history, your bible references are completely out of context.

<To be clear, salvation is based on grace alone. By faith, you accept salvation through Christ and it is by God's grace alone. Catholics have a "grace-plus" salvation and this is not Christian. Grace <plus> works. Grace <plus> sacraments. Grace <plus> purgatory.>

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

"Our justification comes from the grace of God."

"The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it."

"Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us."

Reference: ARTICLE 2 GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

<they pick up the bible and study verses here and there, all over the bible, and interpret them in an ad hoc manner> Ummm ... that's what you do!

<An example of this is when <optimal play> gave us that parable of the man who was in debt to explain purgatory.> The doctrine of purgatory does not rest on one single parable. I just used that as an example. My second link to Dr. Pitrie provided another example. There are numerous passages in Scripture supporting the doctrine of purgatory.

<The same holds true for the many protestant denominations. They grow up going to a church, learn the basics of what it means to be a Christian, and then interpret the bible in an ad hoc manner, so as to make sense of their worldview, which they think is correct.> YOU'RE a Protestant!

Yes, and in the same letter Paul goes on to say, "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-13).

<Our salvation has zero to do with our works, good or bad. Salvation is God's gift to us. We do not earn it or contribute to it in any way, shape or form.> What about "bad works" after salvation?

<Work not, but believe.> So after salvation through belief, just become comatose and wait for heaven?

Yes, and in the same letter Paul goes on to say, "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-13).>

Correct.

Salvation is by grace alone through faith and <not> of works, and works have no part in salvation.

<After> we are saved (by grace through faith - a gift from God), <then> we are santified in Christ, so that we can do those good works he talked about.

Before we experience salvation, we are <unable> to do any good works at all. It is only after salvation that we are able to do any kind of good works, and that is because of Christ's work in us after salvation.

The problem the Catholics have?

They see that "In the same letter Paul wrote..." and they see him talking about works, so they say, "See? It's grace and works!"

Oh? Claiming ignorance on this?

Funny how you seem to think you know everything about everything else, but when I ask you this question, you suddenly become stupid.

Ain't that peculiar?

I guess you're not a very educated man. You don't know what the Founding Fathers thought about Islam, even though there is much written about it and none of it is hidden.

<5) Don't know and am not going to speculate about things I can't find in the historical record.>

WOW! Again!

Let me guess: You aren't going to do a damned thing about removing this gaping hole of ignorance.

You know, you're not one of the more intelligent and educated people on this forum. You lack basic knowledge of our history. Most of the people I interact with here have great knowledge about these kinds of things and I'm used to interacting with people on that level.

Your CDS (Catholic Derangement Syndrome) is just too far ingrained.

Nothing short of a Damascus Road experience can help you.

I can repeat the truth until I'm blue in the face but it's like water against rock with you.

No amount of evidence can move you one iota from your deeply entrenched protestant fundamentalist prejudice.

All I can do is offer a prayer for you.