my Trinity paper<\/a>), such as Jer 30:9, Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24-25, and Hosea 3:5 (cf. Dan 7:13-14, Is 11:4-10, 24:23, Mic 4:3,7, 5:2-5, Zech 9:9-10, 14:9,16).<\/span><\/p>\nThese sorts of verses used to constitute proof for me of premillennialism, but now I\u2019m not so sure, as I have provisionally adopted an agnostic position on most eschatological questions (Catholics are amillennial, as far as I know, although I don\u2019t know if this is required dogmatically or if latitude of belief is allowed). <\/p>\n
I changed my views on this before I converted to Catholicism, having read some Reformed stuff by Oswald Allis and others. But the possibility of parabolic, allegorical, typological or symbolic language is not in the least unlikely, since Hebraic poetic motifs clearly dominate the \u201cProphets\u201d and the \u201cWritings.\u201d One adopts a wooden literalism in OT hermeneutics only at their own peril!<\/span><\/p>\nFinally, we arrive at the crucial question of what exactly constitutes the \u201cgospel.\u201d In my written responses to anti-Catholic crusaders like John Ankerberg and John Weldon, James White, R. C. Sproul, and others, and in my notorious\u00a0Open Letter to Anti-Catholics<\/i>, I have taken up this question, drawing (as with this paper) almost exclusively from research and beliefs from my Protestant days, completed long before I ever considered Catholicism. It\u2019s quite curious (as well as offensive) to me that so many Protestants want to define the \u201cgospel\u201d in the strict sense of \u201cjustification by faith alone,\u201d when the Bible itself is very explicit and clear that this is not the case at all.<\/span><\/p>\nFor example, we know what the gospel is because we have a record of the Apostles preaching it immediately after Pentecost. St. Peter\u2019s first sermon in the Upper Room (Acts 2:22-40) is certainly the gospel, especially since 3000 people became Christians upon hearing it (2:41)! In it he utters not a word about \u201cfaith alone.\u201d He instructs the hearers, rather, to \u201crepent, and be baptized . . . so that your sins may be forgiven\u201d (2:38). <\/p>\n
So, immediately after the Resurrection, at the very outset of the \u201cChurch Age,\u201d an Apostle teaches sacramentalism and baptismal regeneration \u2013 anathema to most evangelicals. St. Paul defines the gospel in Acts 13:16-41 as the Resurrection of Jesus (vss. 32-33), and in 1 Cor 15:1-8 as His death, burial, and Resurrection. When Paul converted, straightaway he also got baptized, in order to have his \u201csins washed away\u201d (baptismal regeneration again).<\/span><\/p>\nBiblical factors such as these caused people like Luther and Wesley and their denominations, and other communions like the Anglicans and Church of Christ to retain this doctrine. Furthermore, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus right out how he could be saved (Lk 18:18-25), our Lord, accordingly, didn\u2019t say \u201cjust believe in Me with faith alone.\u201d No, He commanded him to perform a \u201cwork,\u201d to sell all that he had. Jesus also rewards and grants salvation at least partially according to works and acts of charity, rather than on the basis of\u00a0sola fide<\/i>\u00a0(Mt 16:27, 25:30-46 \u2013 note conjunction \u201cfor\u201d in v.35).<\/p>\n
So then, the explicit scriptural proclamations and definitions of the gospel strikingly exclude \u201cfaith alone,\u201d while other actions by Jesus and the Apostles contradict it by force of example. Conclusion?: The gospel is \u2014 as Paul teaches \u2014 the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus. This is the \u201cgood news,\u201d not some technical soteriological theory, which is why Jimmy Akin pointed out that billboards say \u201cJesus Saves,\u201d not \u201cJesus Justifies.\u201d <\/p>\n
Even common sense would dictate that this \u201cgood news\u201d is comprised of Jesus\u2019 redemptive work for us \u2013 the great historical drama of His Incarnation and Atonement, not forensic, \u201clegal,\u201d imputed justification! And the Prophets foretold these events, not a fine-tuned theory of application of those events to the believer \u2014 irregardless of whoever has the correct theory. How could a mere theological abstract reasonably be called \u201cgood news\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\nIt seems clear enough to me, yet otherwise brilliant, scholarly. learned people like Dr. Sproul (whom I enjoy very much on the radio) are blind to this and wickedly accuse ecumenical Protestants like Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, and J. I. Packer of \u201cbetraying the gospel\u201d by their attempts to cooperate and have fellowship with Catholics as much as possible, and to find common theological ground (which is, of course, very considerable).<\/p>\n
For these reasons and many others, it is wicked and unconscionable for Protestants such as the aforementioned to read Catholicism out of the Christian faith, since both sides fully accept all the supernatural facts of Christ\u2019s divinity and man\u2019s fallenness and believe that salvation comes solely as a result of His atoning work on our behalf \u2014 always ultimately His work of grace, whether or not works enter into the equation. The contrary is Pelagianism, which was condemned by the Catholic Church in the 6th century. Also, both sides agree that good works ought to be present in every Christian\u2019s life, whether they are required for salvation, or done in gratitude for salvation already accomplished.<\/p>\n
Jesus said that He could summarize the law and the prophets of the Old Testament in this statement:<\/span><\/p>\n
\nMark 12:30<\/strong> And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31: And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nVery good! I really overlooked this one.<\/span><\/p>\nIt is significant that Jesus concurs with the scribe\u2019s retort in the passage following, and even assures him that he is \u201cnot far from the Kingdom of Heaven\u201d. The scribe has recognized that the two great commandments are motivated by a love relationship between God and man, and not a legalistic attempt to fulfill a prescribed act.<\/span><\/p>\nYes. As I\u2019ve said, \u201cworks\u201d in Catholic theology (i.e., soteriology) are never intended in the sense of mere \u201clegalism\u201d or in isolation from God\u2019s prevenient and enabling grace (which view is the heresy Pelagianism). Being opposed to \u201cfaith alone\u201d is not equivalent to the denial of \u201cgrace alone.\u201d The latter we vigorously affirm, with you, as the cause, origin, and ground of every man\u2019s salvation. The issue between Catholics and Protestants is thus not the all-encompassing and absolute necessity of God\u2019s grace, but rather, the relationship of justification to sanctification, and the latter to eschatological salvation itself.<\/p>\n
\nMatthew 5:20<\/strong> For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nIn the Old Testament, salvation was not a reward for keeping the Law, it was a gift to those who, with a heart of humility and awareness of their sin, sought repentance from their sinful state, and by faith in God alone found redemption from that very sin that held them captive. Old Testament salvation involved turning from sin to God, a choice to attempt to keep God\u2019s law out of love of Him, not a choice to keep His law out of a manipulative positioning toward His possible good favor.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nExcellent. Very well said, and of course I agree.<\/p>\n
The schoolmaster of the Law (Gal 3:24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster\u2026) was given to illustrate our inability to fulfill the Law perfectly, as only Christ, The Son of God, the Word Incarnate, could, would, and did by His finished work on the Cross.<\/span>
\n
\nIn other words, salvation by grace alone through Christ alone\u2026\u2026..<\/span><\/p>\nMy stomach curdles with indignation at the \u201caccepting Jesus\u201d baloney that is so thick everywhere nowadays.<\/span><\/p>\nGood for you. A. W. Tozer wrote a lot about that, and so did Bonhoeffer, with his famous phrase of \u201ccheap grace.\u201d<\/p>\n
When an individual repents of sin and turns to Jesus Christ, the Son of God for salvation, depending totally upon Him and Him alone, immediately the individual is declared righteous in God\u2019s eyes.<\/span>
\n
\nWe differ in that we call this initial justification, the beginning of a lifelong process. We believe many of these \u201cforensic\u201d benefits are received at baptism, as that is where we place regeneration (e.g., Jn 3:5 and at least 6 other passages which we would produce).<\/span><\/p>\nAs I said previously, \u201cYou nailed it on the head when you said \u2018what God declares, He produces\u2019 \u201c.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is the commonality. God will produce it apart from our definitional and theological endeavors to explain how He does it. And this is the ecumenical point I\u2019ve sought to make with many of my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ online. We think good works are technically part and parcel of justification; you guys classify them under non-salvific \u201csanctification.\u201d But by far the most important thing is that we both regard them as absolutely necessary in every Christian\u2019s life (i.e., their existence, as opposed to their effect and meaning).<\/p>\n
So the practical effect is the same, and I think that will be (at least partially) what Jesus looks for when He judges us on the last day, as indeed seems to be indicated by the \u201csheep and the goats\u201d passage in Matthew 25. And that because the truly, eschatologically saved individuals will perform good works, according to either perspective. Theological precision will be secondary at that point, I believe strongly (not to say that it is ever unimportant!).<\/p>\n
Does God draw us to Himself irresistibly?<\/span><\/p>\nNot without our consent, even tho He causes that, too (Phil 2:13). A paradox, one of many in this area\u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n
Is mankind totally unable to perform any act that would generate favor or mercy in God\u2019s eyes? Yes, that is clearly taught in Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\nAgreed, if meant in the Pelagian sense of an exclusion of God\u2019s prevenient grace. Disagree to the extent that you intend this to exclude meritorious action. Merit is simply \u201cGod crowning His own gifts,\u201d as Augustine put it.<\/p>\n
Are these facts exclusive and contradictory? Only in the fallible, limited eyes of man. God says both are true in His Word, so they both are true. To insist on pushing one facet of the doctrine to the exclusion of the other is folly.<\/span><\/p>\nExcellent. This is a refreshing acknowledgement of paradox and mystery, which is often present in true Christianity, but lacking in many individual Christians. Catholics routinely look at things in that fashion. This is the \u201cboth\/and\u201d philosophy I talk about, as opposed to a dichotomous \u201ceither\/or.\u201d C. S. Lewis said faith without works is like talking about which blade in a pair of scissors is more necessary. I would say the same about grace and free will \/ human cooperation, Tradition and Bible, and many other things which are thought to be intrinsically opposed to each other.<\/p>\n
Extreme Arminianism produces a helpless god at the mercy of sovereign man,<\/span>
\n
\nAs in JW\u2019s and other cults, Copeland and Hagin, and Unitarianism, among many others\u2026\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\nand the Calvinistic extreme produces a despotic god . . .<\/span>
\n
\nOf course they deny that, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n***<\/p>\n
(originally January 1997; revised 8-11-00)<\/p>\n
Photo credit:<\/strong> Saint Paul<\/em> (c. 1619), by\u00a0Diego Vel\u00e1zquez (1599-1660)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[This material is from a short-lived e-mail exchange with a Baptist friend, in January 1997 (originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study of Romans and later edited: on 11 August 2000). Her (selective) words will be in\u00a0blue, but this is primarily my own contribution to the dialogue. Verses are from the NRSV Bible unless […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":23582,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[6392,6395,1211,1121,2342,2346,1123,1120,1122,2344,1124,488,1374,1070,1117,1118,1071,2343],"class_list":["post-23579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-salvation-justification","tag-baptist-soteriology","tag-book-of-romans","tag-calvin","tag-extrinsic-justification","tag-faith-alone","tag-faith-and-works","tag-imputed-justification","tag-infused-justification","tag-initial-justification","tag-justification","tag-justification-by-faith-alone","tag-luther","tag-melanchthon","tag-pelagianism","tag-protestant-soteriology","tag-sanctification","tag-semi-pelagianism","tag-sola-fide"],"yoast_head":"\n
Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study \/ dialogue on Romans. We got through three verses (!), but it was a nice little exchange on justification.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study \/ dialogue on Romans. We got through three verses (!), but it was a nice little exchange on justification.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-09-05T11:03:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/09\/Paul11.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"606\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-09-05T11:03:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-05T11:03:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study \/ dialogue on Romans. We got through three verses (!), but it was a nice little exchange on justification.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification","description":"Originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study \/ dialogue on Romans. We got through three verses (!), but it was a nice little exchange on justification.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification","og_description":"Originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study \/ dialogue on Romans. We got through three verses (!), but it was a nice little exchange on justification.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2018-09-05T11:03:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":606,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/09\/Paul11.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html","name":"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-09-05T11:03:12+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-05T11:03:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Originally intended to be a comprehensive Bible study \/ dialogue on Romans. We got through three verses (!), but it was a nice little exchange on justification.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/09\/dialogue-w-baptist-on-romans-11-3-justification.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23579\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23582"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/09\/Paul11.jpg\")
<\/div>\n