Posted on 07/23/2016 8:40:34 PM PDT by boatbums
Good points!
The context you left out:
Jesus as well as the Apostles included the Old Testament in establishing what made up the rule of faith.
The sola scriptura believer has to insist that everything St. Paul said "by word of mouth" was later written in Scripture, but by so insisting, he adds his own tradition to what Scripture actually says!
I disagree. Scripture tells us that God has ensured all we need to be complete in the faith is in the Divinely inspired Scripture. Why would God allow the fickleness of human memory be the repository for the never changing truth? Everything that happened in human history relative to our faith is included in Scripture. That doesn't mean sola Scriptura insists EVERYTHING that can be known about everything is in Scripture, just what is binding upon believers to hold to. It doesn't exclude the historical interpretation of scripture and how Christians have always received the truths God has revealed. When the deity of Jesus Christ was disputed, church leaders USED sacred Scripture to settle the argument and was the basis for the ancient creeds.
The real question is whether the Bible, in the hands of an individual Christian believer, the ultimate authority over that believer, or is that Bible given to govern the church which Christ founded on his Apostles and gave over to their governance, a church which is a living being, vivified by the Holy Spirit, and hence not needing to be reinvented by each generation by reverse-engineering the text of the Bible. Pacwa believes the latter. White, in practice, believes the former.
No one disputes that God has given to the church those whose roles are pastors and teachers. They have abilities from God to lead believers in the growth of their faith and learning to walk in the knowledge of God so that Jesus Christ is honored and glorified. They settle disputes between fellow Christians and help the local church to be a shining light to the community through accountability and discipline. BUT...these leaders are still bound by the revealed word of God. They are not in authority over God's word. When there is overstepping of bounds, immorality within the leadership or misinterpretation/misapplication of Scriptural truths, then this leadership is to be held accountable to the members. Pastors can be kicked out. They are not RULERS but servants of the body of Christ.
White understands this, Pacwa thinks the Roman Catholic church is untouchable - he's wrong.
Of course it isn’t Catholic bashing.
I’ve noticed quite a few anti-Protestant threads here recently and there’s been no complaint about them.
I can and have defended my beliefs and I don’t think you’ve seen me getting “browned off.” Certain adherents of the Roman religion either won’t or can’t defend anything. What’s unclear to me is why you occasionally jump in to seemingly defend them. Do you believe they have a saving gospel? Regardless, I know there are a lot of lost FReepers who need to hear the gospel and I know they won’t find it in Rome. I have lost Catholic relatives, so this matter is very personal and Important to me. It’s wicked to tell them they have peace with God when there is no peace. I won’t discount the possibility tha some Catholics are saved, but if so they have been saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, not through their Roman system.
Yes, I’m an unabashed Calvinist, but I almost never delve into that topic here because I see it as an in-house discussion for the saints. It’s a position many believers are certain they don’t agree with even though they don’t understand enough to discuss it. For that reason I don’t see it as profitable to have an ongoing battle over the five points, which are just the starting point of what the Reformed believe. However, since it’s often difficult to know where you are coming from or why you make some the comments you make, I’ll say this: Reformed theology does focus on the person and finished work of Christ. It’s all about Him. And it’s the Calvinist who embraces the seemingly contradictory truths (an antinomy) of human responsibility and God’s sovereignty, so I’m good with paradox.
Not only (and some argue the condemnation Necromancy is only as regards occult practice), but despite the Holy Spirit inspiring the recording of approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and with multitudes of angels for believers to pray to before the Lord's resurrection, and additional multitudes of ascended OT saints after, there is not one single prayer by any believer to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. And which is what instruction on prayer to Heaven addresses, (Mt. 6:9) and to whom the Spirit cries ("Abba, Father," not Mama, Mother). And with the risen Lord Jesus being the only Heavenly intercessor, (1Tim. 2:5) and by whom they have direct access into the holy of holies in Heaven, and who is immediately accessible and supremely able to sympathize and enable believers to walk in victory. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19) To God be the glory.
All of which is to say that we have been given the full counsel of God through His holy word. Those who would impose strange and novel doctrines and dogmas upon God’s own under threat of excommunication for not accepting them unquestionably are calling God’s word into question and causing others to doubt its sufficiency. We are reminded to not go beyond what is written. That is a safe and secure place to be - under the shadow of His wings.
And which does not exclude or impugn scriptural oral preaching of the "word," which all the church went about doing, (Acts 8:4) but it means Scripture alone is the infallible and supreme standard, and sufficient in its formal and material sense combined. Requiring assent of faith to the uninspired word of men as equal with Scripture is cultic, not Christian.
Debate is not bashing IMO. I think the question posed was done so by the author to evoke a discussion.
I would suggest that the reason you cannot understand the "contradiction" is simply because you do not understand predestination. God chooses those whom He wills to draw near to Him. That is a fact repeated over and over in scripture. Why He chooses select individuals is not clear. The only thing we do know is to carry out His will.
I just completed reading A Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew by Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr is believed to have lived 110-165 AD. While it is a rather long and tedious book, it is a very interesting apologetic as to how the early Christians witness to Jewish folks (Trypho, being a Jew). Justin exclusively used the Old Testament in showing to Trypho how Christ is identified in the Old Testament. It is most remarkable.
Understanding that Justin most likely gave this dialogue around the early 1st century, it is remarkable the amount of scripture that he clearly understood and could quote. But it wasn't just the amount of scripture Justin could quote, what was also remarkable was how well the early Christians understood how Christ was mirrored throughout the Old Testament-through Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, etc.
Those who would say the early church was about traditions should go back and read Justin's dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. Justin would have made a good Baptist-not a Catholic. ;O)
Good points! All of the early disputes over major Christian doctrines were settled by those who had the superior SCRIPTURAL argument. They understood the authority intrinsic to the Divinely-inspired word. Personal ideas, theories, so-called “special” revelation and hidden knowledge were crushed by the truth God has spoken and ensured would be handed down intact - unchanged by time or heretics.
Sola Scriptura—yes! but one has to know what the scripture actually says, and that demands a thorough and valid hermeneutic that completely communicates the meaning intended.
In some things, God's will is determinate (thelema), not to be superseded by adversaries. But in other things, He has a preference (boulomai), but will allow one's contrariness to prevail. Regarding one's eternal destination, Peter described it this way:
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9 AV; here "willing" = boulomai, not thelema).
That is, in this matter so as to leave the human a quality of individualism, and not be an automaton, The God greatly prefers that an individual be saved from perishing, but if the human's oppositional defiance reigns (and He allows it) despite all His counsel and warnings, the person may choose otherwise, whether deluded or just plain too proud to admit his depravity.
But God does know what the decision will be, though arguing against it in his patience and mercy. If any one rejects the Gospel as authored by Jesus, he will have refused The Father's offer to graciously impute Christ's righteousness to the sinner's account, and will thus be without excuse when God insists that the debt be paid (Rom. 1:20).
With an ache for those who thus choose, I also believe that nevertheless few--not many--will enter the heavenly kingdom of God (Mt. 7:13-14). But that's apparently what Jesus said, and I suppose it is true.
And ...
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
In fact, the entire chapter of John 6 will make no sense at all. Belief must be granted by the Father. Nicodemus couldn't understand the concept...
People cannot understand the gospel unless it is willed by the Father.
Mat_13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
This was foretold by Isaiah.
But unless we understand this simple concept as our Lord told Nicodemus it is difficult for us to correctly teach the gospel.
If the numerous scriptures that plainly state this fact does not convince one, then there are numerous scriptural examples of God directly stepping into the conversion process such as Moses with the burning bush, Samuel call from the ark, Samson call before he was born, and Paul's conversion on the Damascus road to name but a few.
The problem isn't about why God would allow people to go to hell. We all deserve that destiny. The issue is really about why God would want to save any of us.
It is? Then why do you go to The Scriptures to build an argument against their purpose?
The issue is really about why God would want to save any of us.
Oh? Is it not that He can have eternal fellowship with a soul that has the power of choosing not to, but would rather expand its knowledge base?
Jesus spoke in parables simply so people would NOT understand, turn and be saved. God HAS to grant us the power to repent.
If God truly wanted Adam and Eve to "choose" the Tree of Life, He would not have put an angelic guard in front of it.
I understand this is a difficult concept to understand, but it is clearly scriptural. We are saved by God for the purpose to do good works as a testimony about God to an unrighteous world.
I'm so glad you've gone back to Adam and Eve. I would have got us there ASAP. So, we are told by Scripture that Jehovah Elohim imparted this knowledge orally to Adam:
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:16-17 AV).
(1) In verbally commanding Adam, did God give him a choice to believe that what He said was true?
(2) Do you have a choice whether or not to believe that the above translation of Scripture is true?
Please, just answer these. Don't distract us by taking the line of thought somewhere else, as you did for the last two questions I put to you.
What?
What what? Mitch Pacwa understood the question and conceded that, no, the Roman Catholic church has never infallibly defined a single word of Jesus or an Apostle that is not found in Scripture. In other words, whatever the RCC declares must be believed as Apostolic tradition cannot be proven to have come from either Jesus or His Apostles outside of what was written down in Holy Scripture.
Yes, Adam had a choice. And, knowing the choice, he choose to do what was rebellious in the sight of God.
(2) Do you have a choice whether or not to believe that the above translation of Scripture is true?
Yes, we all have a choice to do what God commands of us. Moses tells us that God commands are not hard to keep.
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.