Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:
Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1
And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:
…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2
And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:
Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3
Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:
When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4
And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:
Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5
Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:
To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6
Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.
Authority
The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:
Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7
Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:
By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:
A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.
Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8
This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.
Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:
And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9
Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10
Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:
And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’
The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.
I never denied the role of Scripture in the "confirmation of doctrine", what I did was to illustrate the differences between Scripture and the Bible. Scripture refers to all divine and inspired writings, whereas the Bible is a unique compilation of Scripture. The Bible is not the complete deposit of faith.
Protestantism rejects the Sacred Tradition, it rejects books it refers to as apocrypha, it rejects much of natural revelation. I contend that there are even more truths it misses while celebrating the human brilliance of its adherents.
Celebrating the human brilliance of its adherents is HARDLY just a Protestant trait! ;o)
I disagree that Protestantism rejects all tradition. What is rejected are those traditions that have no basis in Holy Scripture. If Scripture is indeed divine and inspired, then it surely must be used to determine what is the rule of faith for Christians. That really is what the term sola Scriptura means. Four books expound upon the direct teachings of Jesus Christ while he was physically here. Nearly two dozen other writings also inspired by that same Holy Spirit makes up the rest of the New Testament. The Old Testament also came by that same inspiration as "Holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". Why would anything have been omitted that was relevant to our faith? Man is notorious for inventing legends and myths. Oral transmission was insufficient to ensure a Christian in 2013 had access to the same truths as a first century one did. Once the Apostles died out, the Scriptures were the reliable witness believers depended upon and have depended upon ever since. They were preserved for that exact purpose. Nobody rejects the role of the Christian church, the believers, to be a witness to all the world of the gospel of Jesus Christ and to teach the truths that make up the rule of faith. But, everything taught should be backed up by Scripture if it is part of the rule of the Christian faith.
Protestantism only rejects the Apocrypha as Divinely-inspired and, up until a century ago, they WERE included in the KJV. These books WERE read by Protestants. But there is a vast difference in reading books because they may enrich ones outlook or edify ones faith in God's working in people's lives - much like many modern books do today - and reading books as from the very Holy Spirit - teachings that are necessary for ones faith.
As for "natural revelation", I would need for you to clarify what you mean by that before I would agree that Protestantism rejects "much" of it.
Your view of Protestants, or non-Catholic Christians - as I prefer - is flavored by your devotion to your Church. You have voiced here several times that it really doesn't matter what evidence someone might bring to the discussion since you will remain committed to everything your church has decided already. You stated some while ago that you only show up here to keep it honest where Roman Catholic doctrine is concerned and to ensure those who would misstate Catholic dogma are being challenged and corrected. Well, I feel like I need to do the same thing WRT non-Catholic Christianity. I know what I believe and why I believe it. That SHOULD be how every Christian views his faith.
As men state?
Here is Christ speaking:
Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Lets put this in perspective.
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
John Greets the Seven Churches
4John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
God the Father and Jesus are seperate intities as they are all through the Revolation. I could make verse 8 God the Father speaking.
Rev_2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
He was the first and last to live a sinless life.
Can your God die? I don't think the God I serve can. Jesus is telling us His God raised Him from the dead and will do the same for us.
Rev_22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Not only is Christ called Almighty here, who was once dead and is now alive, also notice that verbiage of the ‘First and the Last.”
Here is God speaking in the Old Testament, using the same language to refer to Himself:
Isa_41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
The writers of the Old and NewTestaments wrote this the same way; The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies under your feet.
I don't claim to understand the languages these were originally writen in but sites I have seen claim that 'LORD' can only be translated God. Lord could be a king or lord.
Jesus is my Lord and King. His God and Father is my God and Father as He told Mary Magdelene.
Isa_48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Looks like God says that He is God. He does it quite frequently, you know.
I agree.
Do you believe a righeous God could punish you if he could not prove a man could live a sinless life?
May God our Father lead us to His truth, BVB
“God the Father and Jesus are seperate intities as they are all through the Revolation. I could make verse 8 God the Father speaking. “
The Alpha and the Omega speaking is God, who is quite clearly Jesus Christ. There’s no way to avoid that.
“He was the first and last to live a sinless life.”
It says He is the First and the Last, which was dead and is alive. It doesn’t say He was the first and the last to live a sinless life. He also says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, without reference to His death and resurrection, in the other verses. You’re not allowed to invent your own scripture to defend your weird theology.
“Can your God die?”
He can when He is made flesh, and dies for the sins of His people, and rises again.
Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
“I don’t claim to understand the languages these were originally writen in but sites I have seen”
So you’re basing your theology on websites you have seen somewhere? And what are you even referencing, and what is its significance?
“Do you believe a righeous God could punish you if he could not prove a man could live a sinless life?”
Why would He attempt to prove something like that when He quite clearly tells us that no man can live a sinless life?
Rom 3:10-12 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Mar_10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
If God’s intention was to contradict what He has revealed about our total depravity, then He would also demand that we live a perfect life since it is apparently possible. It isn’t, of course.
“Jesus is my Lord and King. His God and Father is my God and Father as He told Mary Magdelene.”
Jesus is not your Lord and King, because Jesus is quite clearly God, and you deny that.
Joh_20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
I have not read all these posts but see here , and also know that RC polemics on the canon have been refuted e x t e n s i v e l y
Including appeals to the LXX and the Vulgate, and the canon supposedly being indisputably settled before Trent, and the Jewish canon and thus the Protestant canon not having ancient support, and the logic that since we affirm Rome's NT canon and that of Athanasius (though he recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one), then that means we should submit to the rest of Rome's teachings, which logic effectively nukes the church.
And in which threads specious RC attempts at damage control are also exposed.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
One of the things Jesus did on earth was be an example of how a child of God is to live in obedience with the help of the Spirit. Acts and the epistles show the early believers tried to emulate the Christ in all they did with the help of the Spirit.
I believe one of the biggest victories the god of this earth had over the Christ is when he convinced people Jesus is God. You cannot do the things He did and more if He is God and not a Man being led by the Spirit.
The second was convincing man they only needed the gifts of the Spirit until the canon was finished or just for the Apostle.
It will be a long time before Satan is put under anyone's foot.
We are to judge things by their fruits. The Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah until He was made God.
An ever growing number of souls are lost daily to Islam. Satan was able to convince the people he had the only true monotheistic god by claiming the Christians had 3 gods, 4 if you include Mary.
May God our Father lead us to His truth. BVB
I don't know that I said there was "confusion" about the office, using that precise word, yet due to the many layers of complexity in regards to development of this particular theological concept (as with a few others also, here on these pages frequently contended for) clarity, far too often, is in short supply.
Since we do all prefer clarity if available, it is much for reason of desire for clarity and simplicity also, that descriptive statements regarding Latin church "Tradition" such as I highlighted in my last note, themselves evolved into being. It for reason of those type of statements "as established by Christ, handed down to us by the Apostles" be misleading, due to encapsulating misrepresentation of the actual historical record, that individuals such as Webster base grievance, and myself also raise objection.
As for direct opposition to the concept one Apostolic See being sole "papacy" as we know of it today, absolutely, for at that time spoken of Rome was still somewhat upright concerning the issue...not claiming such title for itself, unless Gregory somehow asserted or accepted the "title" spoken of in his letter, when as he made mention of his own predecessors having had not accepted Universal as title.
In closer examination of much else also, and not only of this letter of [Pope] Gregory's... as we wade into those troubled waters where ideas of one sole Universal papacy sprang (the letter itself being but an islet in those wider waters) to the extent the directly quoted above be true (if at all so) it would need be limited to reference of the likes of a Patriarchate, which at that time was not held only by the bishop of Rome, but of which there were three, with these other two not directly beholden to Rome, as GPH has mentioned, and I believe George C. Michalopulos makes brief note of as presented by one Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse of the AOI;
[time = circa Council of Chalcedon for the above]
In light of the above, while also returning to context of Gregory's letter itself, the conclusion cannot arise; that Gregory thought for himself to be a Universal bishop of bishops, and was offering correction to another for trying to assert as much authority as his (Gregory's) office demands as you put it. Instead, as he much criticizes that very idea itself repeatedly in no uncertain terms, he also does not in the slightest suggest such be reserved for the office and position he himself held, even by way of oblique reference.
From the paragraph speaking of "Fraternity" as salutation, it becomes apparent that in tradition even in Rome's own view up until that time, consideration that the Apostolic See of Rome, this Patriarchate as it were (one of three) did not yet view it's own bishop, as singular bishop over all ---West, East, North & South. The full grasping for and gaining of the "singular" as Gregory spoke of [below] had not yet occurred, thus nullifying consideration that singular "Papacy" was ever so, not only from the very beginnings of the church, but as far along as Gregory's own time.
I must ask, but better perhaps you could ask yourself, is the failure to pick up on those sort of things due to; not being able to consider possibility that this "universal bishop" idea (which the papacy much is) carries along within itself some degree of error ---or at least was considered so by Pope Gregory the Great?
At that juncture, Gregory himself represents a pause as it were, in the centuries march of development towards office of Papacy, as known of in later times. The unfolding of this idea of "Universal" at once encompassing all, referencing all, being condensed down to a single point, a sole office to which all others must fully bow towards (or risk incurring wrath of God?), though not a straight-line history simple to trace, traces for can still be found in the assorted materials of the historical record.
Speaking of not so straight lines, we need look only inwardly too, into our very own hearts, ourselves as Christian but imperfect, to see the human dimension which played it's own role(s) in this unfolding, this "unpacking" of Pontificate as it became. I dare say if we were to do it all over again the results might be much worse (given the state of the human heart, wicked beyond measure ---who can know it?) if that be any consolation.
I must stop you there, for it does matter, for reason that quotes including the word "pope" from ECF prior to Gregory the Great at least, are not in all instances of citation referring to the one in Rome. Though it escapes me for the moment, and such things can be exceedingly tedious to go digging for precise example of, it does come to mind that I have seen such play out (years ago) on this very forum ----- a "papist" citing one particularly devastatingly powerful to papist cause of apologetic quote from a quite early ECF, which when more closely examined in the context from which it was derived, was not talking about ---the one in Rome. So it can matter, albeit of fairly rare occurrence. There is more along those lines, with finer gradients of subtly regarding other church teaching, preaching, letters, etc., from earliest record, but that extent of mention must suffice for now.
I do weary of the discussion, yet included no sign-off as it were, but more a hope for real and actual blessing for those whom may become distressed, when the weight of the overall image emerges more fully into the light, for such can be testing of one's faith when it be discovered partially mislaid near to the very altar one may find communion with the Spirit of the Lord, hence my focus upon the blood of Christ itself, not the particulars of the maintenance of said altar, as remedy for also as Origin pointed towards; the difference between ideal, and empirical church.
I'm not so sure of that, although I do see how your own take on things may compel *some* to merely take your own word for it, thus you may be correct as to "casual".
Reading more in-depth, and coming to understanding which itself may require additional searching both beyond the numerous items I provide link to, and within one's own self, could be anything but casual, being as it is a time consuming process. To those who have traveled with us both thus far...if ya' think this is all too much to be reading, consider for a moment the effort put into the writing of it. This place, and this sort of conversation wears me out, yet I am compelled from within to share as best I can.
Thanks for your input. And nice formatting:)
Thank you. We do try.
The argument is not over tradition, Protestantism has many traditions. The argument is over Sacred Tradition. Protestantism demands that all Revealed Word is found only in the Bible, and that they alone are the judge of its contents.
All truth comes from God, regardless of its earthly source or intermediary. Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term. To presume that, if not written by an Apostle, but spoken by an Apostles or an eye witness, that a Truth lacks inspiration is simply wrong.
The argument to trust, that Scripture can be trusted, but Tradition cannot, is equally specious because it requires that same level of trust in those who interpret, translate and teach Scripture. Even your argument that Scripture is sufficiently self interpreting is negated by your attending a Bible college that did what Scripture alone could not. That Protestantism has literally thousands of Bible colleges, theological institutes and seminaries demonstrates, that for all of the rhetoric about self interpretation by the indwelling spirit, even Protestantism doesn't believe itself.
Natural Revelation are those truths discoverable, outside of Divine Revelation, by science and reason. Much of Protestantism argues daily against the Truth in natural revelation.
Peace be to you
“Jesus has to be just like Adam before he disobeyed God. If Jesus is not a man, God could not use these comparisons.”
Jesus IS a man. He’s also God, as the scriptures plainly teach.
Joh 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
“The Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah until He was made God.”
The Jews rejected their Messiah because they expected Him to look pretty and establish a physical, universal Kingdom. The Old Testament plainly tells us that Jesus is God.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Let me repeat what I said:
But, everything taught should be backed up by Scripture if it is part of the rule of the Christian faith.
If something is "Sacred Tradition" and is expounded as necessary for salvation - as Unam Sanctum as well as later Catholic bulls and writings have asserted, then I don't think it is wrong to expect that it be found in Holy Scripture. How else BUT the Scriptures is the "revealed" word to be judged? By men? One thing you seem to keep on missing is that "Protestantism" does NOT demand the individual is "alone the judge" of the contents of the Bible. Speaking for myself, I hold to what the Bible actually says and am governed by God's revealed word to know what is or is not binding upon my faith. Why is it so easy to know what is "heresy" if everyone can just interpret the Scripture for himself? Why is there a dialog going on in this thread concerning the deity of Jesus? If, indeed, as you say, Protestantism is a doctrinal free-for-all, then why are the defenders of Christ's deity using Scripture to counter false doctrine? (A dialog not one Catholic has joined...curious.)
The argument to trust, that Scripture can be trusted, but Tradition cannot, is equally specious because it requires that same level of trust in those who interpret, translate and teach Scripture. Even your argument that Scripture is sufficiently self interpreting is negated by your attending a Bible college that did what Scripture alone could not. That Protestantism has literally thousands of Bible colleges, theological institutes and seminaries demonstrates, that for all of the rhetoric about self interpretation by the indwelling spirit, even Protestantism doesn't believe itself.
That is an illogical argument. Paul directed Timothy to study the Scriptures. Do you imagine I think it can be read through once and everything is miraculously understood and memorized? It is a lifelong endeavor and rarely are its depths completely plumbed. Though the gospel of our salvation is simple enough for a child to understand, there is far more to learn about the nature of our God, his plans, his love and mercy, his grace, his creation, how he works within our lives...I COULD go on for a lifetime. Again you condemn with a false definition.
Natural Revelation are those truths discoverable, outside of Divine Revelation, by science and reason. Much of Protestantism argues daily against the Truth in natural revelation.
I'm afraid you will have to be more specific. What "Truth" does Protestantism argue against daily regarding natural revelation? Paul said in Romans 1:18-20 that:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Is this that natural revelation you are talking about? If it is, then you are incorrect. I don't reject nor argue against this. Why would I, God said it, I believe it. Your problem is that much of Catholicism denies what the Scripture clearly states by attributing real events as "allegorical" or mere parables. Things like the creation story in Genesis, Jonah and the great fish, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. So, who really is consistently arguing against it? Not me. You'll have to be a bit more clear about what you mean and we can discuss it. You obviously have something in mind, but I can't read your mind. If you are going to disparage an entire group and paint us all as inferior concerning something, I won't just let it go. You should know me better by now. :o)
**(I’m not sure why you needed time to know how to reply, when this post is nearly identical to what you’ve told me before!)**
I guess you didn’t read this intro: Three days on the road and I finally made it home last night (little play on the old ‘six days on the road’ song). The wife kept me briefed, via our ‘dumb’ phones,..
My delay responding was because of three days straight of OTR (over the road) driving. I just performed another three day run. I don’t have a smart phone, or a laptop. I suppose we could share personal names and email or snailmail addresses, so I could send you a copy of my most recent cell phone bill, copies of my driver’s log, or even my dispatcher’s ph#.
I don’t need time to respond, just need the access. I was trinitarian for my first 28 yrs. Member of a VERY conservative country presbyterian church. A very well educated congregation, and rooted in the Calvinist doctrine.
We considered ourselves more devoted to the Word than the ‘liberal’ leaning presbies in town. When one of my younger brothers moved to Colorado, met some Oneness folks, he soon obeyed Acts 2:38, and was sending me tapes and literature on the doctrine. I listened and read, and then set forth to correct his ‘error’.
I had to save my brother, I thought. I had all of the same trinitarian arguments to throw at him, but I couldn’t deny that the fact that the Son made it quite clear that all power, every thing, every word, every work, was GIVEN to him BY the Father. So no, sorry to disappoint you, your points used to be mine as well. I can answer them quite quickly (I’ve been Oneness for almost 31 years now), when the line of communication is available.
**We’ve been over this before. Christ continues: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”**
Well, I guess we need to go over it again, because it seems that you forgot this reply to your earlier quoting of John 14:20:
Notice Jesus Christ said, “AT THAT DAY”. What day?...the day when people are filled with his Spirit (aka Comforter, aka Holy Ghost).
He started out explaining how he is the Father’s express image in divinity: “..he that hath seen me hath seen the Father (9)....the Father that dwelleth IN ME, he doeth the works.” (10); but the Son in humanity: “..the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself...”.(10). “..and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me”. (24). He of his own self could do nothing. Why?...because the man Christ Jesus was not sent to do his own will, but the Father that sent him. John 5:30. But, back to ‘AT THAT DAY”.....
The Christ said that the Comforter will not come unless he goes away. 16:7. AND told the disciples in 14:17 “ye know him for he dwelleth with you, and shall be IN you. “I will not leave you comfortless: I will COME to you.” (18). How?...as the Comforter.
He had to go away physically, because he couldn’t abide physically with ‘whosover will’ constantly. It’s not physically possible. He had to return as the Comforter so that ‘whosoever will’ can receive of him, and because of his being poured out, “..the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” 14:12
**Thus, your proof text that every scripture where Christ is called God is simply referring to the Father “in Him” simply doesn’t fly, because Christ here is only telling us of the special unity we have with Christians with our God.**
No, the Christ is not ‘only telling us of a special unity’. There’s a whole passage there where the Lord is telling them of the coming Comforter, saying the “..ye know him; for he dwelleth WITH you, and SHALL (future) be IN you.” 14:17
He goes on: “I will not leave you comfortless: I will COME TO YOU.........AT THAT DAY...”. He’s telling them of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; which he commanded them to receive, and later tells them to wait for it in Jerusalem. It was not going to be poured out until he bodily departed. AT THAT DAY they too would discover the sensation of being filled with the Holy Ghost (although only the Son is filled without measure; ‘all power’). That’s how we become like the Son, fully realizing what it’s like to be in the Father, and he in us.
**If taken as you do, then we also can claim to be God, receive worship, and make the claims that Christ does, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us.**
No, we can’t claim to be God, or ‘God the sons’, but we can be ‘sons of God’. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God , they are the sons of God”. Rom. 8:14 See also: Phil. 2:15: 1John 3:1,2.
**Each of your “I say..” comments is based upon this one premise, which you’ve repeated each time you’ve posted to me.**
That’s a smooth way of saying’ “I’ve answered all your comments”, when you really haven’t. I made the previous post lengthy per your request...:
**All the following arguments after this quote were already responded to. You should probably try replying to it, if you want to continue.**
The three, below, ‘I say’ comments were only in the previous post, so here’s your chance to reply to those:
I say: Key phrase: ‘Son of God’, not ‘God the Son’. When Martha testified that “thou art the Christ, the Son of God..”, Jesus didn’t correct her (”excuse me, but I’m ‘God the Son’, Martha). Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Jesus didn’t correct him and say, “No, I’m God the Son”. Once again, Jesus praying to the Father, “And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the ONLY TRUE GOD, ........AND........JESUS CHRIST, whom THOU hast SENT.” John 17:3
**Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:**
I say: The greatest teacher of all gave the disciples that commandment, and they promptly went about baptizing in the name of JESUS. Now, first of all, note that he says ‘name’ in the singular, not ‘names’. ‘Son’ is a title. “thou shalt call his NAME Jesus”. Luke 1:21. Jesus Christ said that his name is not his own (John 5:43), And Heb. 1:4 says that he inheritted it. “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...”. Sooooo.......what name are YOU going to use to request the coming of the Holy Ghost?
AND........don’t forget Matthew 28:18; Jesus..spake...”All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in Earth” (that’s pretty much everywhere, and let’s see, who GAVE it unto him?......could it be the Father that dwelleth in him, and he in the Father?).
I say: Nice diversionary comment (to avoid answering the point I was making). No, you point out how the Son did all the saving and creating. That leaves the Father a little less than equal.
Who’s greater: The Son says, “My Father, which is GAVE them me, is GREATER then ALL..”. 10:29; and “..for my Father is GREATER than I..”. 14:28.
The Son credits the Father’s house as having many mansions. Example of separate and distinct theology: It’s the Father’s house, but Son built it, but it’s still the Father’s house.
You didn’t touch this either:
Food for thought: 17:1 A vine (Son) and a husbandman (the Father). The husbandman plants the vine and cares for it, etc..
OOPS, it’s chap 15, not 17.
The ‘husbandman’ gave the ‘vine’ it’s start, provides all it’s needs , and has the power to prune or even kill the vine. Of itself, the vine has no such power.
It’s so simple: The Father, in the sinless Christ without measure, makes him divine.
I go back in the truck in 7 hours, so it’s off to bed shortly.
Your comments mix scripture with the traditions of men.
When the Son gives ALL credit for the words, works, will, etc being from the Father, but that the Father dwells in him, and always has, that’s all you need to describe the Godhead, AND where it dwells. And that’s what that passage in Colossians is saying.
The Spirit proceedeth from the Father. Note that our great example ALWAYS prayed to the Father. He didn’t address the Holy Ghost as a separate entity to pray to .
The phrases ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Ghost’ are not found in the scriptures. Maybe I’m mistaken, but aren’t you a ‘sola scriptura’ guy?
Other points are continued in #1213
Have a good night.
Well, you can read #1213 to see if that helps clarify my position on the Godhead.
John 1:1 is covered in one of my earlier posts. But here’s a question for you:
Are you and your ‘word’ two separate and distinct persons?
Thanks for joining the debate.
“Well, I guess we need to go over it again, because it seems that you forgot this reply to your earlier quoting of John 14:20:”
No, I saw it, and it’s the 3rd or 4th time I’ve seen it. I basically ignore it, since it isn’t even a proper reply to the original objection to begin with.
“There’s a whole passage there where the Lord is telling them of the coming Comforter”
And, in your mind, which is desperately trying to make sense of an illogical position, that is significant. It isn’t to me. It is by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in the first place that makes us a new creature in Christ Jesus. It essentially confirms the plain reading of this chapter that I provided previously.
“No, we can’t claim to be God, or ‘God the sons’, but we can be ‘sons of God’. “
According to you, Jesus Christ can claim to be God because the Father is in Him. Therefore, since the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us, from your logic, we can claim to be God.
Luckily, I’m not a Oneness Pentecostal, so I can just read the scripture plainly and not have to make convoluted logic like that to explain what the scripture clearly says.
“You didn’t touch this either:”
To be honest, I skim through most of your posts and don’t really read them completely. If I don’t respond to every little thing, just assume that I thought it was insignificant or not worth commenting on, since other scriptures make my argument without going through the effort of untangling yours.
“It’s so simple:”
Yes, it REALLY is:
Joh 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Prophecy predicts something will happen. It does not mean it is God’s will.
Thomas and you call Jesus God. Contrast what Jesus said to Thomas with what He said to Peter when Peter said He was the Son of God.
He told Peter His Father in heaven revealed that to him. He said to Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed” That was Thomas’ flesh, not God’s Spirit. The only way Thomas could understand Him being alive was He had to be a God. Thomas did not believe Jesus when He said His Father would raise Him, Jesus, from the dead.
Jesus went on to say “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”. They are the ones who believe Him when He said, “His Father would raise Him from the dead”. They are blessed because they too will be raised from the dead when they believe He is the one God sent to die for their sins.
All of the first converts were Jews. Starting at Pentecost, the Spirit of God lead them to the truth of who Jesus was and they believed. It was only the Jews with a religious spirit who rejected Him at first.
1 Corinthians 2:14; But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I still maintain a righteous God cannot condemn His creation ,man, unless He proves man can live a sinless life. Jesus is that Man.
May God our Father lead us to His truth. BVB
“Prophecy predicts something will happen. It does not mean it is God’s will.”
Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Looks like it’s God’s will to affirm that the Son is God to me. Your comment about Prophecy not being God’s will strikes me as a pretty firm symptom of the problem with your “theology,” though that word really doesn’t describe it. A theology suggests as some kind of a logical belief system. Can you explain how it is logical that all the scriptures which contradict your world view are just predictions of what Christians would misbelieve, instead of the truth?
“Thomas and you call Jesus God. Contrast what Jesus said to Thomas with what He said to Peter when Peter said He was the Son of God.”
Thomas and I are in pretty good company. Jesus said Thomas believed, He did not say Thomas believed wrongly. How can you claim to “believe” when, according to you, believing that Jesus is God is unbelief in what you claim Jesus really taught? Christ did not reject the title of God, which He had applied to Himself previously. And, furthermore, He blessed those who believed what Thomas believed though they did not see the evidence before them.
“May God our Father lead us to His truth. BVB”
God is my Father. Those who do not believe can make no such claim.
“May God our Father lead us to His truth. BVB”
God is my Father. Those who do not believe can make no such claim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only God knows who does and who does not believe. I don’t think He died and left you in charge so this is my last correspondence with you. BVB
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.