Reformed Baptist

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

How Protestants read Scripture:

Scripture: “Mary was blessed among women.” (Luke 1:42)

Protestants: “Amen. Mary was blessed among women.”

How Roman Catholics read Scripture:

Scripture: “Mary was blessed among women.”

Catholics: “Therefore, she remained perpetually a virgin, was conceived without original sin, was bodily assumed into heaven, is Queen of Heaven, and should be invoked in prayer.”

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

@LGgentilette @Klubbermeister

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

The word “mentioned” is doing some Olympic-level heavy lifting here. 😂

Nobody objects to mentioning Mary. We object to praying to her, invoking her as an intercessor, and attributing spiritual roles to her that Scripture never establishes.

Reducing an entire theological disagreement to “Protestants get mad when you say Mary” is disingenuous and absurd on its face.

[Catholic Drip 💧 @CatholicDrip___]

Imagine thinking Jesus is mad because you mentioned His Mom. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

This is a textbook straw man.

Protestants do not teach that obedience and good works are unnecessary. We teach that they are the FRUIT of salvation, not the BASIS of justification.

Ephesians 2:8–9: Saved by grace through faith, NOT works.

Ephesians 2:10: Created in Christ Jesus FOR good works.

Notice the order?

Salvation produces good works. Good works do not produce justification.

You're arguing against a doctrine Protestants don't hold.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

Romans 12:2

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

😬

Catholic Bishop Robert Barron says believing in Christ is NOT required for salvation.

"Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved...So, if you're following your conscience sincerely, or in your case [referring to a jew], you're following the commandments of the law sincerely, yeah, you can be saved.”
- Bishop Robert Barron

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

You're still missing the distinction.

Yes, genuine saving faith necessarily produces good works. Nobody disputes that.

But the necessity of fruit does not make fruit the cause of life.

A living tree necessarily bears fruit, but it doesn't become alive BY bearing fruit.

Likewise, good works necessarily follow saving faith, but they do not contribute to our justification.

Romans 4:5 explicitly says God justifies the one who does NOT work but believes.

Both are present. Only faith is the instrument of justification.

You've confused the evidence of salvation with its basis. That's precisely the error I'm correcting.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

You're confusing the evidence of justification with the basis of justification.

Nobody is arguing that genuine saving faith produces no fruit. The question is whether that fruit contributes to our justification before God.

Paul explicitly says God “justifies the ungodly” whose faith is counted as righteousness apart from works (Romans 4:5–6).

James 2 addresses the authenticity of professed faith, not an additional meritorious basis for justification.

Matthew 7:19 describes the fate of fruitless trees; it does not teach justification by works.

Good works are the inevitable fruit of saving faith, not a contributing cause of our right standing before God.

Ephesians 2:8–10 establishes the order: saved by grace through faith, NOT by works, but CREATED for good works.

The fruit proves the tree is alive. It doesn't give the tree life.

[That Catholic Guy 🇻🇦 @Catholic_bro]

the Bible also says that every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Matthew 7:19).

We aren't saved by works apart from God's grace

we also can't separate faith from works. A faith that is alive will produce something.

A faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

It's not just about believing in Christ. It's about living out that faith through love, obedience and good works (Galatians 5:6)

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

The doctrine that Danny states below is important and explicitly taught in Scripture. I believe Catholics know this truth but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness because Scripture doesn't always fit their traditions.

[Danny @Truth_matters20]

We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves us is never alone.

Let the reader understand.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

Facts 👇

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

1 Peter 3:15

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

The thief acknowledged his guilt, feared God, recognized Christ's innocence, and trusted Him for salvation.

That's repentance and saving faith, not works-based justification.

He wasn't baptized, and had no opportunity to earn merit, make restitution, or perform religious rituals.

Yet Christ declared, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

His repentance was evidence of faith, not the price of salvation.

Romans 4:5: God justifies the ungodly who believe, apart from works.

[That Catholic Guy 🇻🇦 @Catholic_bro]

Meanwhile …. The Bible

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

Romans is my favorite book in the Bible.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

We are justified by faith in Christ, not by the degree of our love for Him (Romans 5:1).

Genuine saving faith produces love for Christ, but that love is the FRUIT of salvation, not the BASIS of it.

We love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

"Sola fide is the heart of the gospel.”
— John MacArthur

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

The Assumption of Mary wasn't dogmatically defined until 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

Epiphanius, writing in the 4th century, acknowledged that Mary's final fate was unknown.

No New Testament text records her bodily Assumption, nor is there evidence that the apostles taught it.

A doctrine's later popularity does not establish its apostolic origin.

The Assumption is an ecclesiastical tradition elevated to binding dogma without demonstrable apostolic authority.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

You just proved the original point.

Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397/419) were NOT ecumenical councils. Innocent's letter wasn't one either.

Florence and Trent came over a thousand years after Christ.

The claim was that the FIRST SEVEN ecumenical councils never established a universally binding 73-book canon.

Listing regional councils and later ecumenical councils doesn't refute that.

You're confusing regional recognition with universal dogmatic definition.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

@darlingjeromy You realize I said “the apostles,” plural, right? 😂

So by all means, show me where Peter, John, James, or ANY apostle taught the Immaculate Conception, bodily Assumption, or invocation of Mary.

I'll wait.

The burden of proving apostolic doctrine remains yours.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

Straw man.

Nobody argues Paul had to recount every miracle or parable.

The issue is DOCTRINE.

Paul explicitly taught justification, regeneration, sanctification, the resurrection, and church order.

If Rome claims its Marian dogmas are apostolic doctrines binding on the Church, demonstrate where the apostles taught them.

The burden of proof is yours.

And “Paul wasn't writing a catechism” isn't evidence of apostolic origin.

[MrCasey @MrCasey62]

“Answer with a number, how many times did the apostle Paul mention”:

• Jesus’ earthly miracles
• Jesus’ specific parables
• Jesus’ specific teachings from the Sermon on the Mount
• the Our Father
• the term “hell”
• etc., etc.

0

Paul. wasn’t. writing. a. catechism. 🙄

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

@JonnyRoot_ Incorrect.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

“Not even taught in Romans 8”?

Paul says those God predestined, He called; those He called, He justified; and those He justified, He glorified (Rom. 8:29–30).

Not SOME. The SAME people throughout.

Jesus says He will lose NONE the Father gives Him (John 6:39).

Paul says NOTHING can separate believers from God's love in Christ (Rom. 8:38–39).

Calling this “Gnosticism” doesn't refute the text.

Exegete the passages instead of throwing around heresy labels.

[Reformed Baptist @ScriptureAlone2]

Catholics are very talented at one thing:
EISEGESIS; reading their own beliefs and doctrines INTO Scripture rather than drawing their doctrines FROM Scripture.

Eisegesis: Reading INTO Scripture beliefs and doctrines that the text itself does not establish.

Exegesis: Drawing OUT OF Scripture the meaning the biblical authors actually intended.

The difference? One imposes doctrine on Scripture. The other derives doctrine from Scripture.