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.”
To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.(Jude 1:24-25)
That was addressed to people persevering: building themselves up in faith, praying, keeping in the love of God, looking for Christ's mercy.
The "Beatitudes" are now the guide for what good works are necessary to gain salvation? Is this what you are contending? The reason I ask is because "blessed are the PURE IN HEART for they shall see God" is a beatitude. How can a man or woman possibly have a pure heart - one that is free from any stain of sin - unless it has the blood of Jesus Christ that has washed it clean? Only blood makes atonement for the soul, only blood makes propitiation for sin, only by the blood is there remission of sins. Good works cannot make payment for sin because, if they could, Christ died in vain - he would not have needed to die. But he DID die because His blood is the payment for sin - all that ever was or ever will be committed by man.
Therefore, good works do NOT get added to our faith in Christ in order for us to be saved. They are done, in the power of the Spirit, out of gratitude for the gift of eternal life God grants to us by His grace and we receive this gift by faith. That is the only way a heart can be pure enough to see God. Human righteousness does not make a heart pure, in fact, our righteousnesses are as filthy rags to God if they are offered in the place of Christ's righteousness. Scripture says:
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5,6)
“They aren’t inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the Bishops when they included them”
So you don’t believe in the New Testament. At least you admit it.
Thanks for your post #110. It’s clear why there was no rebuttal as the writing depicts the same Sacrifice of the Mass we attend today...2,000 years later.
This will help you to become more knowledgable about the formation of the New Testament canon and the recognition the writings of the Apostles and those who had their authority to impose upon the early church those books that were to be included as Holy Scripture. I hope you will take a few minutes and read it The Formation of the New Testament Canon by B.B. Warfield
I realize that, and it is Christ who keeps us from stumbling and who WILL present us before God the Father WITHOUT FAULT. We are kept persevering through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The earlier comment was implying that only those who persevere will be saved, but God says we WILL persevere THROUGH Christ. I can't help but think we talk past each other sometimes. If you truly believe that you are saved by faith and not by your works, then the motive for good works changes from being done out of fear of hell into out of gratitude for the great love and mercy of God that gives to us eternal life. Protestants do not say works don't matter, we say works do not ADD TO the sacrifice of Christ as payment for sin and it is through our faith that God imputes the righteousness of Christ upon our souls.
That same grace that gifts to us eternal life also enables us to live in holiness and we WILL persevere because it is Christ IN us - the hope of glory. Jesus said that he would lose none of us, he will not cast us out and he will not allow us to be plucked out of his hands. Some people come back with, "we can pluck ourselves out", but that is NOT true. Jesus said he would lose NOTHING but WILL raise us up with him in glory. He is holding onto us, we are not holding onto him. We are the child and a good, loving father would never let a child hold onto his hand, he holds onto the child's. It's the same with our Heavenly Father. he disciplines and chastises, but he will never disown us. we are sealed until the day of redemption. That is HIS promise and I trust Him.
It is not just implied:
2 Timothy 2:12 If we endure, We shall also reign with [Him.] If we deny [Him,] He also will deny us.
James 1:12 Blessed [is] the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
James 5:11 Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end [intended by] the Lord -- that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.
Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.
I can't help but think we talk past each other sometimes. If you truly believe that you are saved by faith and not by your works
Faith with no action, e.g. prayer, love, charity, is dead and not real. Good works are the form of faith. Anyone who claims faith but does not act on it will not have everlasting life.
Nothing we do can earn our way to Heaven. We must accept the free gift and believe. However, our actions can have the effect of us declining the free gift, e.g. by not believing, not obeying, succumbing to temptation.
That same grace that gifts to us eternal life also enables us to live in holiness and we WILL persevere because it is Christ IN us - the hope of glory.
Not if you reject the gift. It isn't the hope of glory if it is assured.
Works, those spiritual and corpreal works of mercy are the evidence of the Holy Spirit, where you do not find works you do not find Him.
Peace be with you
Not to butt in, but “hope” in the English can come from a Greek root meaning “anticipation,” as opposed to uncertain outcome. I’m sitting where I can’t get to my language tools, but i’d want to see the original text of the passage in question before assigning any conditionality to it. Just sayin...
You are welcome to ignore the last sentence of my post. It does not affect the rest of the post.
In the II Timothy verse, you read "If we endure we will reign with him", the word "if" is also translated "since". So since we endure. It goes back to we WILL endure because of Christ who gives us strength and enables us to endure. A person who is genuinely saved, has received Christ as Savior, believed on Him, WILL endure and he will NOT deny Christ. How can he if Christ is living within him? The Spirit cannot deny himself. If a person truly denies Christ, did he ever really believe in Him?
The James 1:12 passage says, "God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.". I believe God blesses us when we endure trials and temptations, don't you? He empowers us to be able to. Does it say, "you must endure testings and temptations every time or you will go to hell"? No. It doesn't. Tempting and testings "bring perseverance, character; and character, hope". (Romans 5:4) A genuine faith WILL endure testings and will grow by and through them. We are commended to rejoice when we face trials and temptations because it purifies our faith.
So what is the "crown of life"? II Timothy 4:8 speaks about, "in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing." There WILL be rewards given by Christ at the Judgment Seat of Christ. There will be soul-winners crowns with stars representing those won to the Lord through our efforts in Christ. How can we NOT love him who first loved us? How can we NOT joyously await His coming? Again, if you are reading into these verses that our works are what merit heaven for us, you are not reading them in light of what other Scriptures say.
Rather than pull pieces of verses out to put them together like a jigsaw puzzle, why not take the whole of Scripture and read these verses in light of what God says. We know that we are saved NOT by righteous deeds we have done but by His mercy. And His mercy and grace are given to us freely which we acquire through faith. When you start with that knowledge, all these other verses fit in properly.
Faith with no action, e.g. prayer, love, charity, is dead and not real. Good works are the form of faith. Anyone who claims faith but does not act on it will not have everlasting life.
No genuine faith will lack fruit. Some more than others, but that's what I'm trying to get across here. We are saved by faith alone, but it is not a faith which is alone, has been said. And it truly is correct. A faith that takes hold, like that seed of the sower WILL produce fruit, there WILL be a change from a life of sin into a life that desires to be holy as Christ is holy. But there is a BIG difference in saying we MUST do good works to be saved. We cannot do works to be saved, we do good works because we ARE saved.
When you say anyone who does not act on his faith will not have everlasting life, that is the wrong thing to say because it implies that actions merit everlasting life and we already know that we are saved NOT by our acts but by faith. He who has no change in his life after conversion and who has no fruit or good works that demonstrate his faith, either doesn't have genuine faith to begin with or God is still working on him. Not everyone changes overnight. Sanctification is a process but justification happens when assent of faith is made. God sees the heart, we can only look at the outside. Only God knows if a person's faith in genuine. We all know people who seem to have many wonderful works for God, but they turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing. We are told, "By their fruits you shall know them" but people get tricked all the time. God never gets tricked. He knows every secret thought and inclination of the heart.
Don't be so quick to pigeonhole a piece of a verse and assume it says something. Read the whole passage and understand who is being spoken to and what it is about. Don't jump to conclusions whenever a certain word comes up and just assume it means something that it very well may not. Have a good night.
Catholic teaching indeed - totally void of truth! Catholicsm never taught the truth about salvation and they never will - their teachings are of a worldly sense and catholics will never know what the TRUTH is because they are hell bent on ‘the church said’ ‘the church said’ and what the catholic church teaches is not biblical. Even when eternity hangs in the balance, catholics, mormons are determined they ‘got it’ so they ignore the Truth when it is presented to them. That’s ‘religion’ for you - ‘acting religious’ while totally clueless on the supernatural. God is supernatural - HIS WAYS are higher than man-made religion and all their pomp.
Catholics and Mormons are stuck in bondage ‘in man’/their church. God’s OWN are free ‘in Christ’. God’s Holy Spirit inspired Word is the FINAL AUTHORITY. The book of mormons, the catechism, the koran are from the pit/man. It does not matter if you agree, it needed to be said so you can never claim you never knew. And it will take more than this for the brainwashed to ‘get it’.
HarleyD:
No, they did not believe in Penal Substituion. THat was Calvins theory. St. Anselms Satisfaction Theory was largely a development to totally show why the Ransom THeory that was proposed by some Fathers, i.e. God had to pay Debt and thus if God had to pay a Debt, it was paid to Satan to ransom back humanity. God doesn’t owe a debt to Satan, which is where the Ransom theory went off into an area that the Christus Victor theory rooted in recapitulation of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus and Anselms Satisfaction theory did not.
Penal Substituon is a theory of Calvin where the Cross is seen to appease God’s Wrath and Justice. There is No Incarnation theology linked to it at all, ie. God is Love and No greater Love than to lay ones life down for his Friends, etc.
If you have the right to interpret Scripture according to your judgment why do I not have the same right?
7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. 8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Verses 9-11 explain HOW we are to work out our salvation. It's not to earn salvation, or to qualify for it, because despite the best we do we can never qualify for it or earn it. Salvation is not something to be bought for a price, any price. Money can't pay for it and works without money can't pay for it. There's not enough in the whole world to pay for a drop of the blood of Jesus.
And the filthy rags that our own righteousness are cannot be added to the sinless, spotless perfection of Jesus' works.
It'd be equivalent to a child drawing with a crayon on the Mona Lisa thinking that it improved on it and the artist would be pleased with his efforts.
Works are a natural outgrowth of salvation, the FRUIT of it. The fruit doesn't give life to the tree, the tree gives life to the fruit.
Saying one believes and adding works to it is also no different that tying fruit on a tree and acting as if the tree really produced it. Sure it may look it from a distance but it's not genuine.
Real life comes from within and works are a result of getting saved, not getting saved the result of doing works.
When we are saved, the works follow and as we renew our minds and become more Christlike, we are working out our salvation.
What a wonderful way to start my day, mom. Thank you for that enlightening post!
Or it was insignificant to the message of scripture.
Wow indeed. If it wasn’t even mentioned in scripture I would suggest it was insignificant to the message of scripture.
But they don't have the same faith that we do...It doesn't even have the same meaning to them...
Their 'faith' is their religion, the Catholic religion...They commonly ask, what 'faith' are you...As if faith is a denomination...
Are you kidding me? I reject the Apocryphal books because they contain obvious errors. Please show me where in my post you found my rejection of the New Testament.
Um, perhaps because the Catholic church does not allow you the privilege.
That aside, the problem is that Scripture that is clearly and plainly stated and teaches facts, does not NEED to be *interpreted*. The problem arises when someone takes a clear passage of Scripture and tries to make it say something it doesn't by reading into it, or starting with preconceived notions/traditions and forcing Scripture to conform to their beliefs instead of conforming their beliefs to conform to Scripture.
Amen, sister.
That's because to them it IS. They call it *the Faith*.
The Biblical definition of *faith is
Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Very true, Jesus Christ is the message of scripture. From the beginning to the end; from the Word at creation to the Lamb of God 'Who taketh away the sins of the world' whose kingdom shall have no end.
GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT inspired WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY
JESUS, THE WORD, IS THE WAY AND THE ONE TRUTH!
HarleyD:
First off, let me say that as compared to some of the other Protestants on FR, you are at least willing to engage in the Theological Tradition of the Church down thru the centuries. I mean that in all honesty and You and I have been here long enough to know tha I don’t mince words.
Now, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The Council of Trent defined more defintively the Catholic position of Justification. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement, while related to the Doctrine of Justification is distinct from it.
Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Enclyopedia (1998, p. 112) states regarding Atonement “ The Christian Doctrine that CHrist’s passion, death and resurrection, infinite satisfaction is made to God for the sins of humanity. Through this satisfaction, we are reconciled to God. Christ atonement consists, no primarily to the intensity of of the suffering he endured, but in the perfectly obedient and LOVING [emphasis mine] acceptance of the will of the Father which He displayed in embracing this suffering for our sake. Christ’s perfect obedience atones for the disobedience of Adam and wins for us the Grace of obedient discipleship and divinizing sanctification.......In the History of Christian Doctrine, a variety of theological explanationss have been developed to account for the mystery of atonement. Theories that emphasize the love and obedience of Christ in suffering for our sake are preferable to those theories [either penal or substitutional] that center on the appeasement of Divine wrath or the ransom paid to Satan.”
So as I stated earlier, the Catholic understanding of the atonement is rooted in the Christus Victor Theory-Recapitulation [St. Justine Martyr, St. Irenaus from the 2nd century] and the Satisfaction Theory. The Christ Victor-Recapitulation idea is very important in the Eastern Orthodox Church and many later Church Fathers also used this theory [St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and St. Clement of Alexandria]. Theosis, which is what happens to humanity because of Grace is rooted in Recapitulation theory of atonement, very important in the Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is also part of the Catholic Church.
Satisfaction, most fully developed by St. Anselm is also acceptable as the Definition I cited cleary states. So the Catholic CHurch in terms of the atonement would combine aspects of the Christus Victor-Recapitulatio and Satisfaction theories. On the other hand, the Ransom theory paid to the Devil and Penal Subsitution are not acceptable from the Catholic perspective.
Justification, the process by which a sinner is made righeous, pure and Holy before God is what the Council of Trent defined against Luther’s Doctrine and Calvins Doctrine.
Now, the Catholic Doctrine of Justification is entirely consistent with the Theories of the Atonement that I cited above and while they are correlated with each other, there are still Distinct Doctrines. On that point, I think you would agree or at least you will see that In Catholic Theology those are Dictinct but Related Doctrines.
A comparison of England with Spain, or Scotland with Portugal, or the United States with Mexico and Peru or Brazil, proves the advantages of living variety over dead uniformity.
Nor should we overlook the important fact, that the differences which divide the various Protestant denominations are not fundamental, and that the articles of faith in which they agree are more numerous than those in which they disagree. All accept the inspired Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice, salvation by grace, and we may say every article of the Apostles’ Creed; while in their views of practical Christianity they unanimously teach that our duties are comprehended in the royal law of love to God and to our fellow-men, and that true piety and virtue consist in the imitation of the example of Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all.
Thank God for what the good article by Philip Schaff testfies to, to which can be added,
While iniquity was always a significant part of America, it was generally held as shameful and overall resisted by Church and State in Protestant America. Early on, in a pamphlet for Europeans titled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America (1754), Benjamin Franklin wrote, in part:
“ ...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. - ohn Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26
So, just to be clear about this, what is being said here is that the Catholic position is that it's Christ's SUFFERING which atones for our sins, correct?
Wow indeed. So if it is not in the Bible, you don't believe it?
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?
5) Where is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?
6) Where is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?
Just for starters.
The answer to all of those questions is easily answered by Christ’s example of referring to scripture which had been handed down. The New Testament books were written by those closest to Christ and have never proven to be in error unlike the books of the Apocrypha. I would suggest you read the posts by daniel1212 on the canon. As for Sola Scriptura, it’s becoming more clear as time goes on that no other authority can be trusted especially the RCC, Mormons, Muslims, et el.
To be more precise, RCs do not have the right to interpret Scripture according to their judgment if it conflicts with RC teaching, but within those boundaries (and Rome has infallibly defined very few verses, if at all) they have a great deal of liberty to interpret and wrest Scripture to support Rome, as they understand her.
And which (as recently seen in the case of Lumen Gentium) can vary somewhat from RC to RC, as well as the degree of extrapolation they must engage in when trying force Scripture to support traditions of men which do not depend upon Scriptural warrant.
“If you have the right to interpret Scripture according to your judgment why do I not have the same right?”
Hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to take a shot at answering your question. First, so you know where I’m coming from, I am Reformed and Baptist. But I also have some familiarity with and respect for the Fathers, as well as Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Truth is wherever you find it.
With that in mind, I’d like to probe your thoughts a bit, because I have always been fascinated by this authority question dividing so-called Protestants from Catholics, because it messes with my head like an Escher diagram.
The puzzle begins like this. You say there is a prohibition on private judgment in interpreting Scripture. I don’t have a textual basis for that (we can discuss 2 Peter 1:20 later if you like), but assuming it is so for the sake of argument, how can you comply with your own principle of non-private judgment?
Here’s the syllogism:
Minor Premise: God, being God, would be able and willing to make truth knowable to us to a reasonable level of certainty
Major Premise: Private judgment doesn’t produce reasonable certainty because reasonable people can arrive at significantly different conclusions using the same text
Therefore, private judgment cannot be God’s chosen path to reasonably certain truth.
From this syllogism, you get the motivation to look for something other than private judgment as a way to discover God’s truth, and you posit in it’s place an infallible interpreter, the Church.
Now here’s where Escher comes in. At first glance, the structure of the syllogism appears inarguable. So, for the sake of argument, let us assume it is correct. Now what? Now we must look for that alternate means of finding God’s truth, and we must find it without the use of private judgment, else we have introduced, according to the syllogism, a fatal uncertainty.
So by what means may we know truth? Through the Church, you say. But how do I know anything about the Church? So you present me with an array of facts about the history of the Church. Fine. Now what do I do? Sit passively staring at those facts like an unprogrammed automaton? No, I have to decide if I believe those facts as presented, along with an army of theological inferences that follow close behind. How do I do that? Because I am not yet in the fold. I am only standing at the door, looking in. To step in, I must judge those facts. No one else can do that for me. It happens in me. It is my private judgment, the very thing I am, under the syllogism, forbidden to do.
So I go back to the syllogism, because it is preventing me from finding my infallible interpreter. For if I use my private judgment to decide that the Church is that infallible interpreter, then I cannot be reasonable certain that my judgment is correct. In fact, if my major premise is correct, I cannot verify anything to be correct, even my major premise. And if I cannot rely on my major premise being correct, then my conclusion that an alternative to private judgment must be found cannot be verified as correct either.
You see how the system implodes on itself.
So, if you have a solution, I will listen patiently. And I will use my private judgment to determine if you are correct. Because happily, under my epistemology, I am allowed to do that. Indeed, I appear to have no other choice.
Then try answeing them, one by one. Be specific.
If you believe what you believe, you should have the answers.
I bet you won't do it. Because you can't.
Nope. Not ignoring. Simply pointing out the inconsistency. Catholics would like to take John 6:50+ and interpret these in a very literal sense although there could be many contextual differences especially since this was told to the Jews who would find the understanding difficult. Yet, as you demostrated, Catholics simply choose to ignore the ONLY obvious interpretation of John 6:40+ in favor of some made up Church belief.
I would suggest that the Church (and many Protestants for that matter) simply are not reading the verses for what they state. Doctrines are made up. Not studied.
Answer these questions.
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?
5) Where in the Bible is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?
6) Where in the Bible is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?
Just for starters.
Read “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott Hahn
A Trestise on the Presdistination of the Saints
1Sa 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.
1Sa 3:8 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, "Here I am, for you called me." Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man.
1Sa 3:9 Therefore Eli said to Samuel, "Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant hears.'" So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
1Sa 3:10 And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, "Samuel! Samuel!" And Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant hears."
1Sa 3:11 Then the LORD said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle.
1Sa 3:12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 1Sa 3:13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them.
1Sa 3:14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."
....
1Sa 3:18 So Samuel told him everything and hid nothing from him. And he said, "It is the LORD. Let him do what seems good to him."
1Sa 3:19 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.
1Sa 3:20 And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD.
As Augustine rightfully determined, we are saved to believe so that we might do good works.
From their own brethren:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
Also see 871 of 904
I suspect you did not read this. I hope you could provide a better answer than the one I received.
Beautiful, well written.
I tend to be more sympathetic to the EO since they DO believe that doctrine can be changed or modified given the will of the church. They don't pretend like our Catholic friends who will say that they never altered their doctrine when their websites clearly shows this is not the case. The EO may be wrong in my personal opinion, but at least they make sense.
Instead, some other would be singled out for some small mistake, real or imagined, the attacks focusing upon where there was perceived weakness, fairly often devolving into some sort of personal attack. I'm watching, and see what goes on.
The Eastern Orthodox Church followed the teachings of Pelagius and John Cassian (a follower of Pelagius and one who emphasized "semi-Pelagius"). As I've stated many times on this board, it isn't surprising the Roman Church is identifying with the eastern Church. They have embraced the semi-Pelegius views which at one time was rejected by the Church as heresy.
The idea that Christ merely was a symbol of perfect love acting out His obedience to the Father may be rooted in eastern teachings but it certainly was not part of western teachings. Augustine view (especially late in life) which he received from the early teachings of Cyprian, was that man was saved to do good works. We don't do good works to be saved. A subtle but important difference. He condemned semi-Pelagius and fought very hard against it. The Church embraced it at the Council of Trent.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth" [Rom. 9.12.]
Not if you are talking about the divinity of Jesus. Mary is “only” the mother of Jesus if he is less than God, much more than that if he is God. As the Arian controversy shows, the Scriptures are open to both interpretations.
To be more precise, Christ was an example of good works by being obedient. We too should be obedient in good works.
See a problem???
>>1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?<<
In John 14:26 Jesus inspired the Apostles with His Word. John 14:26, “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” (ASV) Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be given so that the Apostles will have brought to their remembrance all that Jesus taught, i.e., Jesus wants to pass on to the world through the Apostles not their wisdom, not their insight, but His own Word! Jesus, remember, is the high point of God’s revelation. Jesus turns to the Apostles and says, “The Spirit will bring to your mind everything that I have taught.” He didn’t say that to any of the people after the apostles did he.
In Matthew 10:40, Jesus explains the concept of an apostle known well in that day when He said, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (NKJV) Jesus was sent by the Father, and Jesus turns and sends the Apostles into the world. And He says “the person who receives you (as My apostle) in fact receives Me; and in so doing, receives the Father Who sent Me!” Jesus made the apostles spokesmen for Him and authorized to speak His word. They didn’t speak their own words but through the Holy Spirit remembered everything Jesus spoke. Jesus didn’t give that authority to anyone else did He.
Paul taught that it was his word. Galatians 1:11-12, “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.” Once again, no other human beings were given that promise by Christ.
Paul says II Timothy 1:13, Paul says, “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us.” You see he says to listen to those who were told that the Holy Spirit “which dwelleth in us” is what we are to “hold to”. No one else was told that the Holy Spirit would “teach you all things and bring to your remembrance” did He.
The apostles wrote what the Holy Spirit guided them to write and we know that Jesus told them the Holy Spirit would “bring to their remembrance” what to teach. Did Jesus give that promise to anyone else? Did the apostles promise anyone that the Holy Spirit would “bring to their remembrance” what Jesus taught? Paul warned about teaching what he didn’t teach. II Timothy 1:13, Paul says, “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us.” The only teaching we have from the apostles is recorded in their writings. What was important to know was written down and not left to the risky word of mouth.
Once again Jesus says. John 16:12-15 12"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
No other human was given that promise by Jesus and the writings they left us are all we can truly say with faith are inspired by the Holy Spirit and as we see in II Timothy 1 we are warned that we should listen to only what the apostles taught.
The RCC, John Smith, and Muhammad might convince you that they somehow can add to what we know the apostles taught but I’ll stay convinced that Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would “bring to their remembrance” and told no one else that.
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
We weren't. Try to keep up.
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.