Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility
White Horse Inn Blog ^ | Jun.13, 2012 | Michael Horton

Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock

In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.

Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).

Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.

For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.

For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.

The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.

1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.

2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.

3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.

4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.

5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).

6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).

7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).

8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?

9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.

10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).

11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.

12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”

13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.

14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.

15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: agendadrivenfreeper; bloggersandpersonal; michaelhorton; reformation; romancatholicism; whi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-363 next last
To: CynicalBear

“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.. But faith without works is dead.”

~ James 2:24-26


101 posted on 06/14/2012 4:24:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; CynicalBear
If the works of the Law handed down by God Himself couldn't save, what makes you think your works will?

Works are the result of true saving faith. The problem with the theology that works save is that then Jesus didn't have to die. We could have done it on our own.

Luke 18:9-149 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Both believed in God. One had works, the other didn't.

The one who went away justified was NOT the one who had the works.

Salvation is by grace through faith so that NO MAN CAN BOAST.

If you get in on your works at all, it gives you something to boast about before God, angels, and men.

Besides, it only takes one sin to condemn us. It's far too late for anyone to get in by works, even if we spent the rest of our lives in sinless perfection. Read more of James 2, like the first part of the chapter.

102 posted on 06/14/2012 4:36:26 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Christ didn’t establish an earthly organization

Unfortunately, this cannot be true, unless Christ is a liar. Look at the Church in context of Scripture.

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Mat 5:14-15

So here Christ says His Church will be visible.

“Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph 4:3-5

The Church is to be one, not many.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18

Here Christ says his Church will not be destroyed.

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH.

But also look at the words - behave thyself in the house of God – this Church is clearly a physical thing in which we need to behave. Physical, Earthly.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Mat 28:18-20

Again, here Jesus assures us that He is always with us, to the very end.

So Christ says His Church will not be destroyed or fall away from him, that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to always teach the Truth, and He will always be with us. The ONE physical Church Christ Himself established is much more than a collection of nice people who read a Bible and believe anything they want.

103 posted on 06/14/2012 4:48:14 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Mat 5:14-15
104 posted on 06/14/2012 5:09:20 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
The early church fathers determined what were the inspired works of God. They had a set criteria. The Roman Catholic Church replaced these books with their own version with no criteria of their own 1000 years later at the Council of Trent. The early church fathers’ believed scripture was given to them by God and unique. The Catholics today believe the Church created their version. The Roman Catholic Church really has effectively abandoned the early fathers for 1500s Renaissance gobby-gook. There are many placed on New Advent where they simply state the fathers were wrong or didn't have a complete view of things. (Think I'm wrong then look up atonement or the church's view on supersessionism to name but a few.)

It would be laughable to think Catholics actually follow the traditions of the fathers if it wasn't for the fact that many Catholics here believe it to be so and will argue you tooth-and-nail over it. Catholics no longer teaches what the early fathers taught and Church "infallibility" is simply a way to cover up or hide behind fundamental changes in doctrinal beliefs. Catholics believing they follow the Church fathers is like Obama thinking the private sector is doing well. It's all an illusion hoping people buy into it.

105 posted on 06/14/2012 5:10:33 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Catholics no longer teaches what the early fathers taught

Catholics don't have to debate what the meaning of the word "Is" is.

Indeed, the devil is happy when people deny the real presence in the Eucharist:

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians:not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” –Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

So Martin Luther says only the devil believes the bread is only bread.

Where would he get such an idea? From Christ Himself!

106 posted on 06/14/2012 5:22:21 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

CynicalBear:

Your answers are typically fundie. How has anything I stated suggest that I do not believe in Christ. You say based on Scriptures, but the Bible does not interpret itself, the Bible was put together by the Church and the doctrines that were defined by those Church Fathers, Incarnational theology, Christ as a Divine person with both a human and Divine Nature, the Trinitarian of One God yet three Distinct persons, who while all Divine and distinct, are by relationship One God. These doctrines were defined by those CHurch Fathers and CHurch COuncils.

Who defined your doctrines? You did. All you have demonstrated is that you reject the Catholic Faith, which all Protestants do. For most of you, your entire existence is defined by what you reject, yet most of you here never which Protestant Sect, among the thousands out there, you belong too and none of those Protestant groups at the Doctrinal level are in agreement yet all claim we believe the Bible. What you really believe is your own recent novel interpretations of the Bible which are not in continuity with the Historic Church.


107 posted on 06/14/2012 5:23:40 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

HarleyD:

In which way is the Catholic Faith in contradiction with the Apostolic Fathers and the 4 early Councils of the CHurch, Nicea 325 AD, Constantinopile 381 AD, Ephesus 431 AD and Chalcedon 451 AD. Your post is full of errors, the Council of Trent in 1564 did not define a different Canon from the early Church. It was the most definitive statement on the Canon. The Council of Florence in 1442 defined the same canon as Trent over 100 years before. The Canon defined at Florence as the same canon defined by the Council of Carthage in 419AD, it was the same canon defined by Pope Innocents Letter to the Catholic Bishops in Gaul [modern France] in 405 AD.

Your post is either an outright misreprensation of the facts or you are ignorant of said facts. Now you know better

In addition, your statements that the Catholic Church is in contradiction with the early Church Fathers, Please tell me and give me examples.


108 posted on 06/14/2012 5:30:23 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body?

People are free to listen to what the Lutherans have to say on the matter or to listen to what a group of Catholics have to say on the matter. What's the difference except to argue over who has the "authority" to tell you what is the correct meaning? I would suggest that God gave us each a brain and instilled in us the Holy Spirit to discern what precisely is truth without having to listen to what the Lutheran leaders or Catholic bishops have determined the truth is. It certainly worked for CS Lewis. Egad I wonder if Christians even think anymore. What a dying art.

But please don't quote to me the fathers of the Church. They were the ones who also believed in the atoning death of Christ for the penalty of our sins. The Church no longer believes in this and justify their stance by saying that the early fathers knowledge was incomplete. The Church no longer believes in supersessionism saying the early fathers were bias and prejudice. And there is plenty more.

But if the Church can convince you that all you need is to drink a cup of wine each Sunday, live a good life, and tithe; then I'm sure they feel they've done their job. I'm well aware of what the Church teaches today and little of it is supported by the inspired word of God.

I'll tell you what. I could live with the early church fathers views on the Eucharist if you'd agree to their views on the atonement, justification and supersessionism.

109 posted on 06/14/2012 6:00:27 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Catholics no longer teaches what the early fathers taught and Church "infallibility" is simply a way to cover up or hide behind fundamental changes in doctrinal beliefs.

I will leave it to the reader to decide which church today worships and teaches as St. Justin Martyr proclaimed in his First Apology around A.D. 150:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.


110 posted on 06/14/2012 6:01:08 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
Your post is either an outright misreprensation of the facts or you are ignorant of said facts. Now you know better In addition, your statements that the Catholic Church is in contradiction with the early Church Fathers, Please tell me and give me examples.

Oh, please. I'm not contradicting anything nor am I'm misrepresenting anything. At time I often wonder if Catholics ever read their dictionary. Here is a few examples you requested:

Here is just a small excerpt from the topic of the atonement on NewAdvent:

Not only was the view of the atonement changed from the early fathers because of their "confusion" but it was modified from Anselms work which was done many centuries later. I don't see anyone arguing that the early fathers were confused about the Eucharist.

On justification

I would add that on this last one New Advent talks about how the "heretics" believed in justification by faith but they were the ones who were pointing to the early writings. New Advent can only justify it's position by quoting from the Council of Trent 1500 years later. And the Council of Trent has no writings on which to justify it position on saved by faith and not by works. Thus the discount any early writings on justification by faith including those of Augustine.

These are but two examples.

111 posted on 06/14/2012 6:26:39 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”


112 posted on 06/14/2012 6:56:56 PM PDT by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
But if the Church can convince you that all you need is to drink a cup of wine each Sunday

Actually, it was Jesus that gave that Command. The Church provides the vehicle to to make Christ's words real.

"In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come."

And be careful what you mock - "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

Many are weak, infirmed and dead in spirit for not believing the wine is the Blood of Christ.

113 posted on 06/14/2012 7:03:18 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
But if the Church can convince you that all you need is to drink a cup of wine each Sunday, live a good life, and tithe; then I'm sure they feel they've done their job. I'm well aware of what the Church teaches today and little of it is supported by the inspired word of God.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
(John 6:53-57)

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
(Matt 26:26-28)

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
(1 Cor 11:23-29)

114 posted on 06/14/2012 7:38:34 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Martin Luther says only the devil believes the bread is only bread. Where would he get such an idea? From Christ Himself!

Nice to see Martin quoted by a Catholic. Must be an even-numbered Thursday.

115 posted on 06/14/2012 7:54:06 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

HarleyD:

You obviously are not comprehending Council of Trent as nowhere does it teach salvation by works, that is what you want to believe but it is false. Trent in no way contradicted the Fathers of the Church as its view of justification are in line with St. Thomas Aquinas, who is the lens thru which most of Trent was articulaed in and Aquinas was in line with Augustine.

As for your view of the Atonement, St. Anselm as a “Catholic” born in Italy and sent to England by the Pope. His theory of the atonement is legitimate but not to the exclusion of others. As the article you linked also clearl points out that any theory of Atonement has to connect the Paschal Mystery with the Incarnation, which was the first theory of atonement and the ones that the early Fathers of the Church articulated, i.e. The Victor Christ theory which is expressed by the Fathers going back to the Recapitulation theory posited by St. Justin Martyr and Ireneaus.

The Ransom theory is not one that is acceptable by the Catholic Church nor is the Penal Substitution theory of Calvin which went far beyond Amselms theory of Satisfaction. Calvins theory is rooted in Punishment to appease God’s Anger and Justice, which goes against the theology of the Incarnation which Christ became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary because of his Love for Humanity.

So you are misrepresenting the Catholic Position and you don’t understand the article you linked. It clearly states than any acceptable theory of atonement can’t be seperated from Divine Incarnation and it was the idea of Incarnation as God becoming Man to restore Man back to his state before fall because of his Love for man, as St. Paul states, even while we were sinners, God still loved us [Letter to the Romans].

The theory of Atonement was not changed. It was developed by both the early Fathers of the CHurch and their theory of Atonement and St. Anselms theory [He is a Doctor of the Catholic Church and part of the Benedectine Tradition] are both acceptable and seen as complements, not in compiition.

The Antinomianist cited in the article you linked were part of the early Gnostic Movements and those groups and their theology were correctly labeled as heretics. So yes, the Faith alone mantra that Luther and Calvin posited did have some adherents in the early Church, but the groups positing that theory were Gnostics.


116 posted on 06/14/2012 8:13:35 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: xone

And no one knows Mary’s grave to this day.


117 posted on 06/14/2012 8:55:01 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The Scripture, however, was Jewish Scripture. The New Testament is a reflection on it in the light of their encounter with the Lord,more or less as the Psalms, and the Writings were a reflection on the Torah in the light of Israel’s encounter with God in history.


118 posted on 06/14/2012 9:02:29 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The word used there is ekklēsia and means an assembly.

Definition
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/ekklesia.html

He was talking about any assembly of Christians. Not an organization or hierarchy which was later developed by carnal man. The one church carnal men try to make the RCC is really the entire body of true believers in Christ alone. One body of which Christ is the head.

119 posted on 06/14/2012 9:36:00 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29


120 posted on 06/14/2012 9:37:22 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
>>but the Bible does not interpret itself<<

With the help of the Holy Spirit it most certainly does.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27 Actually Cyril had it right.

Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) is reflective of the overall view of the Fathers:

Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man. [A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17.]

121 posted on 06/14/2012 9:48:13 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564; CynicalBear; metmom
Who defined your doctrines? You did. All you have demonstrated is that you reject the Catholic Faith, which all Protestants do. For most of you, your entire existence is defined by what you reject, yet most of you here never which Protestant Sect, among the thousands out there, you belong too and none of those Protestant groups at the Doctrinal level are in agreement yet all claim we believe the Bible. What you really believe is your own recent novel interpretations of the Bible which are not in continuity with the Historic Church.

As one of the "FR Fundie Protestants" you labeled in derision, let me answer a few of your false contentions. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It is self-interpretive, meaning Scripture interprets Scripture. All those councils or church fathers took what SCRIPTURE said and used it to write their creeds. In addition to that, they had the indwelling Holy Spirit - that we ALL have who are in Christ - and, as Jesus promised He would, leads us into all truth. That there are different denominations does not mean that there are that many different "interpretations" of Holy Scripture. There IS only ONE truth concerning the MAJOR tenets of the Christian faith. If ANY church claims to BE Christian, they must adhere to those doctrines clearly laid out in Scripture. When Paul called the church the "pillar and foundation of the truth", he certainly did not mean this church MAKES up the truth. NO, the church is to uphold and support what IS the truth. By your same measurement, why are there hundreds of denominations with Catholicism? Don't you agree that, no matter what a church calls itself, if it is "Christian", then is must adhere to Christian tenets?

Yet Protestants DO NOT reject all of the catholic faith. As long as ANY church upholds the doctrines of the faith, they are in unity. But no matter what the outside sign says on the church building, if what is taught within does not comport with what Scripture states, then they are NOT representing the true church of Christ, the Body of Christ, the called-out assembly of believers in Christ. That body spans time, nations, peoples, languages and, yes, even denominations. Us "Fundies" believe in the virgin birth of Christ, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - God in three persons, that Christ died as a propitiation for our sins, that Christ was foretold in Scripture and He has fulfilled prophecies about the Messiah, that through Christ God created all that is or ever will be, that Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, that of His kingdom there will be no end, etc. There's PLENTY we do not reject of what Catholicism teaches. But where we DO disagree, is major and it is no small matter, but is the difference between eternal life in heaven or hell. Why do you think we concentrate on this issue more than any other? The GOSPEL?

Those early church fathers, the Apostles, the early church, they ALL understood that salvation was by grace through faith and not by works - justification by faith. We are justified by faith because of God's grace and grace is not grace if works have to be added in. Out of the many areas the Reformers sought to restore the church back to orthodoxy, that was the MAIN thing. All the other issues do not mean much at all if this one doctrine is perverted. This is NOT a novel or new "interpretation" at all but it is backed up by the early leaders in the churches, the writings of the theologians back then, and, more than anything else, it is what Scripture clearly teaches and it was taught in both the Old and New Testaments. It is ALWAYS been about God's grace. Does God desire us to live holy lives? Of course He does! Does He tell us what he expects of us? Absolutely! But the ONLY way we can live victorious, God-honoring lives is by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit that is given to us when we by faith receive Jesus Christ as Savior. ONLY then, is it even possible to please God. Doing good, living clean and holy lives, doing good works only matter to God when they are done out of gratitude to Him for His grace, and NOT as a means to gain His grace. If nothing else is understood in this comment, I pray this one thing is.

122 posted on 06/14/2012 10:15:01 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

The difference being that Christians KNOW that they ARE saved, not that they will be because they know that they ARE saved NOW.

Ephesians 1:3-14 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 2:4-7 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:13-14 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Scripture could not be more clear that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit to guarantee and ensure our salvation.

God is faithful even when we are faithless, (2 Timothy 2) because He knows our frame and remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103)

123 posted on 06/15/2012 4:55:58 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Excellent, bb.


124 posted on 06/15/2012 5:06:00 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564; CynicalBear; boatbums
For most of you, your entire existence is defined by what you reject, yet most of you here never which Protestant Sect, among the thousands out there, you belong too and none of those Protestant groups at the Doctrinal level are in agreement yet all claim we believe the Bible.

On the contrary, my identity is Christ and being in Him. That is why we do NOT identify as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, whatever, because it is CHRIST who saves, not churches which save.

We have died in Him, been buried with Him, and raised in Him. The local assembly which we attend on Sundays for worship is incidental to our identity IN CHRIST.

It's all about Jesus. It's ONLY about Jesus.

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

125 posted on 06/15/2012 5:11:56 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: metmom; CTrent1564; boatbums
>>It's all about Jesus. It's ONLY about Jesus.<<

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

1 Corinthians 1;12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

126 posted on 06/15/2012 5:20:13 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; CTrent1564; metmom

Well stated boatbums! You nailed it.


127 posted on 06/15/2012 5:30:17 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
And no one knows Mary’s grave to this day.

Nor Moses'. Enoch and Elijah departures were documented. Moses' death was documented but no grave found. So the evidence is two people 'taken' by God, one who died and was buried by God, Mary's death neither documented or her grave found = Assumption into heaven.

128 posted on 06/15/2012 5:58:04 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

boatbums:

You have restated the novel Protestant position. You still are wrong. The early Church in eccelsiology was Catholic, It was Sacramental, it was Liturgical and its view of Justification was “synergestic”. There was no forensic or imputed view of Justification.

And again, the Catholic Church does not teach you are saved by works. You are saved by Grace, but Grace enpowers man to live the Christian virtures of Faith, Hope and Love.

Even Luther realized that is view of Justification was not found in St. Augustine.

I am not going to get into your statments about the Bible saying what it means and means what it says because I know quite well that all you Protestants who expose that have continued to split in thousands of sects.

There is only One Catholic Church and it teaches one faith. The issue of whether some Catholics expouse goofy stuff does not negate the fact that the Catholic Church teaches the Apostolic Faith. Some Catholics choose to ignore it or at times outright challenge it but that does not negate that ROme teaches what she Teaches.


129 posted on 06/15/2012 6:04:57 AM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; HarleyD

metmom:

Congrats to belonging to the CHurch of Metmom, where Metmom defines what are the docrines that are definitive.

Of coure, we also have here the Church fo Boatbums where Boatbums defines what doctrines that are defintive.

And then of course there is HarleyD, and the Church of HarleyD who defined what doctrines are defintitive. Of course, I have crossed swords with HarleyD before over the Council of Ephesus [I think]


130 posted on 06/15/2012 6:10:57 AM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“The difference being that Christians KNOW that they ARE saved, not that they will be because they know that they ARE saved NOW”

So I guess Saint Paul was a liar.


131 posted on 06/15/2012 8:57:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent

Then start doing this! Believe on Him, and all he said, not just those things your traditions allows you to believe in.

“This is my body” is a great place to start. Do you believe this? Why do you reject the clear words of Christ in the Scripture? “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood, you have no life in you”

132 posted on 06/15/2012 9:28:24 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564; boatbums; HarleyD
Congrats to belonging to the CHurch of Metmom, where Metmom defines what are the docrines that are definitive.

Of coure, we also have here the Church fo Boatbums where Boatbums defines what doctrines that are defintive.

And then of course there is HarleyD, and the Church of HarleyD who defined what doctrines are defintitive.

So what? Salvation is not based on acceptance of or adherence to church doctrine, any church doctrine because churches don't save and belonging to a church doesn't save and agreeing with some particular church's doctrinal positions doesn't save.

It's JESUS who saves.

Another misunderstanding Catholics have is the nature of the church. It's not an organization Christ established.

The true church is an organism, not an organization. Because bb and HD have put their faith in Christ alone for salvation, they are part of the body of Christ, on HIS say so, not ours. All anyone has to do is read Scripture to learn that believers are part of the body of Christ. we're not part of the body because we say so but because God tells us in His word that believers ARE part of Christ's body. We just believe it and accept it.

That is exhibiting faith, believing that what God has told us and what He said is true really IS true.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

133 posted on 06/15/2012 10:05:12 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: metmom; NKP_Vet; FatherofFive
The problem with the theology that works save is that then Jesus didn't have to die.

That is an invented conflict of those who do not trust in the Scriptures.

    2 Peter 1:1-12 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that [pertain] to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption [that is] in the world through lust. But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, [you will be] neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth.
No, the things in the above paragraph do not come automatically with faith. It is not faith alone or we would not need to be reminded that we must "do these things" to make our "election sure".

For if you do these things you will not stumble.

134 posted on 06/15/2012 10:24:21 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

“That is an invented conflict of those who do not trust in the Scriptures”

How so? The early church fathers were ALL CATHOLIC, and they compiled the New Testament and decided what was divinely inspired and what was not. Not the Jimmy Swaggart crowd.

“To be deep in history is to cease to he protestant”
~ Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman
Famous Anglican convert to Catholicism


135 posted on 06/15/2012 10:34:58 AM PDT by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The difference being that Christians KNOW that they ARE saved, not that they will be because they know that they ARE saved NOW.

Scripture could not be more clear that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit to guarantee and ensure our salvation.

God is faithful even when we are faithless, (2 Timothy 2) because He knows our frame and remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103)

Our Lord differs with you:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."
(Matt 7:21)
Saint Paul also had something to say on the matter:
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Cor 6:9-10)
Our Lord provided for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins:
[Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
(John 20:21-23)
God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
136 posted on 06/15/2012 10:48:41 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
>>Then start doing this!<<

What an arrogant, presumptuous, mind reading thing to say. What in heavens name makes you think I haven’t?

>>Believe on Him, and all he said<<

I already do including this.

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

>>“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood, you have no life in you”<<

You can rely on the physical, carnal, and rituals but I will listen to the Spirit of God and dwell on the Spiritual rather than the physical.

137 posted on 06/15/2012 10:52:13 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
You can rely on the physical, carnal, and rituals but I will listen to the Spirit of God and dwell on the Spiritual rather than the physical.

But you listen to your traditions, and not the clear words of Scripture.

Here is a suggestion. For just a while, ignore your traditions and read the Bread of life discourse in John for the first time. Assume that the words mean what they say - "This is My Body" means "This is my Body" and not what you pretend those words to mean. Explore the Scripure as if you believe Scripture to be infallible and true.

138 posted on 06/15/2012 10:59:45 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; metmom
Here’s some clarification written by Paul and others.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The means by which we are saved is an unwavering faith in Jesus.

John 6:38-40 Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Paul rebukes Peter for applying rules for salvation.

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

Acts 13:39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

1 JOHN 2:12 I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake.

Hebrew 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Relying on some legal earthly act is law not grace and faith.

And how do we know?

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

139 posted on 06/15/2012 11:01:37 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
>> Here is a suggestion. For just a while, ignore your traditions and read the Bread of life discourse in John for the first time. Assume that the words mean what they say - "This is My Body" means "This is my Body" and not what you pretend those words to mean. Explore the Scripure as if you believe Scripture to be infallible and true.<<

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Ezek 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. 2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that scroll. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Eat and drink the word of God.

The day I see you physically eat a scroll or a book I might consider you serious.

140 posted on 06/15/2012 11:06:22 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Our Lord provided for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins

You are correct. As Scripture says in 2 Peter 1:9

    For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
One is cleansed of their old sins, not future sins.
141 posted on 06/15/2012 11:15:27 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The verses I posted were from Paul. He’s the one who says by the Holy Spirit that we are seated in the heavenly places and sealed with the promised Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

If you disagree with that, it doesn’t make Paul a liar.


142 posted on 06/15/2012 11:17:21 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
How so?

Scripture makes clear it is both faith and works. It is not faith alone.

143 posted on 06/15/2012 11:17:23 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

“Scripture makes clear it is both faith and works. It is not faith alone”

You are exactly right. Tell that to the once-saved, always-saved, Jimmy Swaggart crowd.


144 posted on 06/15/2012 11:29:56 AM PDT by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I’m sure you will remind God what good works you did won’t you?


145 posted on 06/15/2012 11:33:52 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
You continue to ignore the clear words of Scripture.

What does "This is My Body" mean to you?

Your tradition says Is = Represents.

If Scripture means anything you want it to mean, it means nothing.

Let’s look at the Greek

Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative

Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa

So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?

Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou

Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?

Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body."
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou tsbto thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

146 posted on 06/15/2012 11:45:07 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Yes faith is needed but none of the passages that you cited indicate "faith alone." I find it interesting how you highlight Rom 3:28-30:
a man is justified by faith apart from works
The full quote is "works of the Law", i.e. the Law of Moses. This is made clear by the rest of the passage that you included:
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
If you would read all of Romans you would see that Paul is arguing against those who would have Christians continue to follow the Mosaic Law. It is not a treatise about "faith alone". This is the same argument in Galatians and Philippians. Among the Jews the mention of the Law/Torah is understood as the Law of Moses.

Nor does anything you have written explain the clear meaning of the passages that I cited against "faith alone". If you are going to claim Scripture you must claim all of it, not just those verses that seem to support your position.

Returning to the topic of this thread, notice that we are arguing about the meaning of Scripture. I have not relied on any statement of the Catholic Church. We both cite Scripture to support our positions. To whom to we appeal to know the true meaning? Do not say the Bible because that is where we started. Without an divinely established authority all we are left with is our personal, and very fallible, opinion.

This discussion also highlights the danger of trying to interpret Scripture without proper understanding and guidance from the Church. A proper understanding of Scripture would have known that Paul's reference to the Law was the Mosaic Law. All too often I see Protestant explanation of Scripture as an attempt to force it to support an a priori dogma found in their tradition while at the same time completely ignoring all passages that would call that dogma into question.

147 posted on 06/15/2012 12:26:21 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; NKP_Vet
I’m sure you will remind God what good works you did won’t you?

He won't have to:

    Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is [the Book] of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

148 posted on 06/15/2012 12:33:45 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Tell that to the once-saved, always-saved, Jimmy Swaggart crowd.

I'm trying, even with the Hobart's Glory Barn crowd.

149 posted on 06/15/2012 12:35:53 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: metmom

metmom:

Thanks for that theological statement from the Church of Metmom. Of course, as you are well aware, I reject the theological statements from the Church of Metmom.


150 posted on 06/15/2012 12:39:26 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-363 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson