Posted on 06/17/2014 9:05:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
Right after Ad extirpanda. The context was your unreferenced description of SS, while Westminster represents a historical source relative to that.
But if you must resort to such inane remarks then it further testifies to your lack of a real argument.
Amazing how many varying interpretations of Scriptural "truth" are floating around these days.
Indeed, According to your interpretation, how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted, outside of excluding that none could possibly contradict her?
And do you deny that RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty. (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers; http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp)
Scripture in its fulness uniquely providing for that, while it alone was the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law.
If that were true there would have been no time gap between the life of Christ and the completion of the written Gospels. That time gap cannot logically be glossed over. It does not follow that Scripture being "the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law," requires a completely sufficient revelation, but means all additional revelation/information writings had to be consistent with what was prior established, in principal or precept. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' (Isaiah 8:20)
Thus for instance, while a New Covenant with its changes could be promised, consistent with the principal seen in God making covenants, and the manner of attestation that affirmed them as Divine, yet the basic universal laws remained (so the homosexuals cannot use the "shellfish" argument). Yet in magnifying the Law, which came to be referred to as the first 5 books, the Lord could go back to Genesis and remove the liberal provision for divorce.
Meanwhile, the full sufficiency aspect of SS can be seen as consistent with the principal that what God provides must be sufficient for what God requires in out present state, which is what SS applies to, while foretelling of further complete revelation. (1Jn. 3:2)
The full sufficiency aspect of SS pertains to a complete canon, which canon is provided for by what was written before the last book, showing writings being recognized as being of God, and without an infallible magisterium. And as explained, its sufficiency pertains to formal and material forms, and explicit and implicit, including both precepts and principals, providing all that is necessary for salvation and Christian perfection. This thus includes things that "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (Westminster) - to conclude by reasoning. (I would add that i do not see true (though I do not know of any now) prophecy (Acts 11:28) is not contrary to full sufficiency, as it would not now add to Scripture which provides for it, but which is judged by Scripture as supreme: 1Thes. 5:20,21)
A respected Reformed author of the past states,
The perfection of Scripture asserted by us does not exclude either the ecclesiastical ministry (established by God for the setting forth and application of the word) or the internal power of the Holy Spirit necessary for conversion. It only excludes the necessity of another rule for external direction added to the Scriptures to make them perfect. A rule is not therefore imperfect because it requires the hand of the architect for its application. - http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/aside-to-formal-sufficiency-series.html
A form of full material sufficiency is what RCs (knowingly or not) engage in when attempting to show that Scripture supports all her doctrines, including that tradition is equal. And they can also reasonably concur the Scriptures are formally sufficient as in providing clear truth by which souls -if not all - can be saved by. And they could even allow that Scripture provides for recognition of writings as being of God, and thus for a canon. But what they mean by this includes that Scripture provides for the infallible magisterium which is necessary for assuredly knowing what Truth consists of and means, and thus what writings are of God, and thus that Scripture does not teach that this certainty and authority is possible without her.
Thus in essence Rome presumes to be the infallible supreme authority over all, including Scripture, even though Scripture manifestly contradicts that. Therefore, while one can debate the meaning of sufficiency, and RCs will argue it provides for traditions, the larger and ultimate issue is the supremacy of Scripture for versus supremacy of Rome, for rather than all truth claims being subservient to Scripture, seeing as even Rome holds that only its words are wholly inspired of God (versus "infallible" teachings or the forms in which "infallible" truths of Tradition are provided), Rome makes Scripture into a servant to serve her, as by her reasoning it simply cannot contradict her since she has decreed God is the author of both, ((Providentissimus Deus) and only her interpretation of Scripture can be correct in any conflict.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them...the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion,... Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm Even Cardinal Congar insists, “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399. Thus again as Manning states, "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour."
While "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..," (Westminster) yet not as infallible, anymore than those to sat in the seat of Moses were.
Scripture is above them all.
If that were the case, the written Gospels would have to have been available to Christians from the beginning.
Once again you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Being the supreme authority which all subsequent revelation must conform to as described and could not contradict does not require it to be complete, or militated against its supremacy, but provides for its completion. The canon is considered closed because the books therein outshine all competition, and like the incense God "copyrighted," there has been no more like it, and were recognized as classics are.
"Subsequently" being the weak link in your argument. St. Paul was clearly referring to traditions taught orally, but not written.
That is your weak link, as you cannot show one oral tradition Paul taught, it can only claim things were based upon the premise of her assured infallibility. What i can show is that whenever a revelation is called "the word of God/the Lord" then what it was is normally shown as revealed, presently or subsequently.
Faithfulness to continuance of the visible Church established and structured by Christ requires Apostolic succession.
Simply an assertion in lieu of an argument. It remains that the Holy Spirit shows the preaching of the Word being perpetuated thru pastors, and which was their main function, and not priests, and thus this is the ordination that the Holy Spirit instructs. (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7)
False. Grace is a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us through the merits of Christ for our salvation.
It seems you simply engage in knee-jerk denials without considering what i wrote. Again, "Salvation by grace thru merit," in which "by God's grace," one becomes good enough to enter heaven based on his own personal holiness, "by God's grace," is how Roman salvation works. Thus in contrast to what Scripture teaches in hearts being purified and justified by a living faith, and made to sit together with Christ now, and be present with the Lord at death or his return, as shown, or you must either become good enough enter Heaven, or suffer time in purgatory (and to atone for sins).
"All have sinned and have need of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ".
Amen, praise be to God! Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)
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. (1 Corinthians 6:11)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:5-6)
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 2:6)
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)
But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. (Hebrews 6:9)
Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. (Hebrews 10:35-36)
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2:14-17)
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)
The justifying faith that saves is a faith that follows, but it is not the following that gains him eternal life, but the faith that is manifested by following, which God in grace, rewards though the recipients actually deserved damnation.
You apparently missed the point, which is that although you dismiss the testimony of the Church Fathers (who received the teachings of Christ from the Apostles) you resort to extra-biblical texts produced over a millenium later to support your opinions. This strikes me as inconsistent (and frankly, illogical).
Indeed, According to your interpretation, how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted, outside of excluding that none could possibly contradict her?
No interpretation required. Another readily available fact is that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. The multiplicity of scriptural interpretations is at the root of this wide disobedience to St. Paul's exhortation ("Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment"). Since Jesus didn't tolerate a plethora of opinions among His followers, how are such divergences justified today among the squabbling denominations who all claim to follow Him, each convinced that they alone teach the truth?
And do you deny that RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage
Absolutely. There are parameters which are clearly defined by the Church and "any interpretation" certainly exceeds those limits.
It does not follow that Scripture being "the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law," requires a completely sufficient revelation, but means all additional revelation/information writings had to be consistent with what was prior established, in principal or precept.
Yes it does follow, because public revelation (Scripture and Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Yet in magnifying the Law, which came to be referred to as the first 5 books, the Lord could go back to Genesis and remove the liberal provision for divorce.
"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Divorce, stoning, dietary rule changes, etc., were fulfillments, not "magnifications".
while foretelling of further complete revelation
And who possessed the authority to determine the authenticity of "further complete revelation"?
The perfection of Scripture asserted by us does not exclude either the ecclesiastical ministry
Indeed.
"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question."
"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood."
The canon is considered closed because the books therein outshine all competition, and like the incense God "copyrighted," there has been no more like it, and were recognized as classics are.
So "the canon is consider closed" based on subjective opinion, rather than objective fact (the death of its last author)?
It seems you simply engage in knee-jerk denials without considering what i wrote.
What you have written displays a profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not been deliberately mischaracterizing those teachings, but are unfortunately ill-informed.
I must get back to you later. I have a new keyboard for my arthritic fingers, and there is some combination of key that i sometime hit which nukes the tab deletes the text - which take me hours to type - and so i must rest and come back later. Perseverance of faith versus the devil.
No, the point missed and the illogic is yours, as rejecting a source as authoritatively being determinative of a doctrine is not that same as invoking a source that describes or asserts it, which i did often in substantiating what Rome teaches, and thus i did so in regards to a Prot. teaching.
Indeed, According to your interpretation, how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted, outside of excluding that none could possibly contradict her?
No interpretation required.
Faced with the great liberty and disparate interpretations of RCs can engage in, while complaining about those of Prots, and that is your answer?!
Indeed how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted is a matter of disparate interpretations.
But "No interpretation required" is indeed a truthful answer, as it does not really matter what Scripture says, as only what Rome says matters, which is cultic. But even then you cannot except the problem of interpretations, as how many infallible teachings of Rome there are, and what level others fall under, as well as their meanings to varying degrees are all matters of interpretation.
Another readily available fact is that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world.
"Another?" The first relegates Rome to being like a cult, while this one places you in the company of papists who parrot specious RC assertions which have been refuted and are ill considered.
The multiplicity of scriptural interpretations is at the root of this wide disobedience to St. Paul's exhortation ("Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment"). Since Jesus didn't tolerate a plethora of opinions among His followers, how are such divergences justified today among the squabbling denominations who all claim to follow Him, each convinced that they alone teach the truth?
Actually, the apostles failed to get much of what Christ taught until after He opened up their minds to the Scriptures, and th supremacy of which He taught beginning with defeating the devil by the use of them, (Mt. 4) to substantiating His word by them.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And it is such basic things as He taught in the gospels that evangelicals are most unified in, in contrast to the overall fruit of Rome, while comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized.
Consider the issue of the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom and Congregatio de Auxiliis , in which after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was never solved but all Rome could do was require a truce.
The NT church itself was far from comprehensively unified, while Rome's answer, that of the pope as the supreme infallible exalted leader that the whole church looked to, is invisible in Scripture. Nowhere in the church epistles is he set forth as such, nor submission to him presented as a solution to problems, nor even in the Lord;s word to the 7 churches of Asia.
The unity the NT church did have was under unmistakably supernaturally attested apostles of God, who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in stark contrast to the claimants of Rome. Thus it is those who hold Scripture as supreme that would most submit to these apostles were they here today, the lack of many who are even close is a judgment, and they attest to the greatest practical unity, outside cults who have the greatest unity under sola ecclesia, shared by Rome, but which is not a Scriptural unity.
Rome for her part is certainly not perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and the unity of Rome is limited and largely a paper one, while what one does and effects constitutes the definition of what believes, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:16) And in which Rome partly testifies what she really believes by treating prosodomite murderers as members in life and in the death, while those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired authoritative word of God are the most unified in core beliefs, in contrast to the fruit of Rome.
And do you deny that RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage...
Absolutely. There are parameters which are clearly defined by the Church and "any interpretation" certainly exceeds those limits.
But as my sentence that you cut off goes on to say, "as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty." So you deny this great deal of liberty that Akin's states they have, which simply again examples the disparity of interpretations of Rome among RCs.
It does not follow that Scripture being "the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law," requires a completely sufficient revelation, but means all additional revelation/information writings had to be consistent with what was prior established, in principal or precept.
Yes it does follow, because public revelation (Scripture and Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle.
No, it simply does not follow. The supremacy of the established wholly inspired written word always was the standard for the establishment for further Truth claims.
"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Divorce, stoning, dietary rule changes, etc., were fulfillments, not "magnifications".
Again you are confusing two different things. Indeed, the Lord fulfilled the Law in such things as dietary changes, but but in making even lusting in the heart to be adultery, then He was magnifying the Lord, as the Holy Spirit said He would, even if you disagree:
The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. (Isaiah 42:21)
And who possessed the authority to determine the authenticity of "further complete revelation"?
The same one who established Elijah as a prophet, or Genesis as being of God, and an itinerant Jewish Preacher of the 1st century.
"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question."
Why are you forcing Scripture to support Rome? Go show me even one place single time where the Holy Spirit titles NT pastors "hiereus" (priests) or or “archiereus” (high priest)! That is an etymological fallacy due to imposed functional equivalence. See here . Just one more novelty.
The only way NT pastors are called "priests" is by way of inclusion in the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood."
Another example of eisegesis! The word you render "priesthood" is not hierateuma but presbuterion, that of presbuteros (senior/elder)! The fact that you must read this into Scripture testifies to the foreign nature of Rome.
So "the canon is consider closed" based on subjective opinion, rather than objective fact (the death of its last author)?
Its called the consensus of the faithful, the same reason the Lord and His church could so abundantly appeal to the Scriptures, without a single dispute about what they were. The alternative being that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. You want to try arguing for that? You must as that is your fundamental premise.
What you have written displays a profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have not been deliberately mischaracterizing those teachings, but are unfortunately ill-informed.
Then prove it rather than resorting to crass bombast, as it is i who have been providing substantiation on what Rome teaches, while you only referenced a bit by Newman once to the CE, which as shown, affirms the baptized is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness."
All your assertions of grace will not change that. Trent even teaches in essence that if anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema. And fine distinctions about different kinds of grace needed to try to justify this is lost to the laity who much trust in their merit to gain them eternal life.
Except here.....
Salvation by grace by believing
John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Acts 16:27-31 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Romans 3:20-30 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Romans 4:1-25 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Romans 10:9-13 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Galatians 2:15-21 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:1-29 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Ephesians 2:1-10And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Our works that we do do not contribute to our salvation. They are the fruit of salvation, not the cause of it.
Additionally, the works we are going to be judged on, if any, would be the righteousness of Christ credited to the account of the believer who receives that credit by faith.
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
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.