| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
More by God's grace.
I can relate. I named myself in a theological sense. :-)
I will raise you to be 5 predominate if convenient canards, or largely straw men used by RC apologists is that sola scriptura SS meant and means that all that that can be known/revealed is in the canonized scriptures,
and only what is explicitly taught can be doctrine,
and all that is needed for growth unto perfection is formally provided in Scripture,
and that Scripture is all that is to be used in understanding God's will, thus it was and is to be read by itself, without reference to historical ecclesiastical doctrines or writings that can make it more comprehensible .
And that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ.
SS does not mean that all that can be known from God is in Scripture, as it testifies otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) and natural revelation as manifesting God's power, wisdom, grace and judgment. Ps. 19:1-6; Rm. 1:19-20; 2:14) But that Scripture alone is the infallible standard for Truth as the assured, established Word of God, providing what is needed for salvation and growth toward perfection. It formally provides what is needed for conversion and basic growth, so that normally a soul can for example, by God's grace, read a text such as Acts 10:36-43,47 and believe and be born again, justified by faith, (Acts 15:7-9) by baptized, and by other writings begin to grow in grace.
And that materially Scripture provides for such things as reason, teachers, magisterial authority, etc., including writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus by extension, for a canon.
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
III. 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; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
Thus while even nature can provide light, it is judged by Scripture as the infallible source, but the Truths of which by "good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture," and the due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part]. .
And thus it provides for study helps, which evangelicals have much in via classic and largely complementary commentaries besides contemporary teachers. And rather than being hopeless divided, due to a common assent to core Truths, they historically contended against those who denied core salvific truths, both against cults and Catholic distortions.
In addition, as regards ignoring doctrines and historical church writings, while one may, yet Reformers did not. As Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism,
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — Quoted by James R. Payton in, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html”
In fact, it was because of this that no less a neo-ultramontanist as Manning affirmed that history is only what Rome says it is:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228 .
Thus SS does not hold that all that can be known/revealed is in the canonized scriptures, and only what is explicitly taught can be doctrine, and all that is needed for growth unto perfection is formally provided in Scripture, and that Scripture is all that is to be used in understanding God's will, that thus it was and is to be read by itself, without reference to historical doctrines or writings that can make it more comprehensible (elucidate it).
Finally, as for that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ, this is false, and we have dealt with this before, for as while sola fide holds that it is precisely (God-given) repentant (God-granted) faith alone that appropriates justification before God for the God-motivated soul, "purifying the heart by faith," (Acts 15:7-9) not any system of actual merit, yet the kind of faith that justifies is not an intellectual faith, which even demons have, but is a faith that effects the "obedience of faith," (Rm. 16:26; Acts 26:20) "faith which worketh by love," (Gal. 5:6) given opportunity, confessing the Lord Jesus in word and deed, baptism being the first formal expression of that, manifesting "things which accompany salvation." (Heb. 6:9)
And as baptism expresses faith, it can be the occasion of conversion by faith, but neither it nor any works are the basis for it, and therein lies the difference. Salvation is promised and given to those who manifest the obedience of faith, (Jn. 10:27,28; Heb. 5:9) because this testifies to faith, which God rewards, but not because the works earn one eternal life, as what they earn is damnation. (Rm. 6:23)
And in contrast to the RC straw man that has Reformers preaching both a regeneration that leaves the redeemed simply whitewashed, with not interior change, and justified by a mere head vs. heart faith, that does not need to be a faith that effects obedience, Reformers clearly taught otherwise:
In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]
This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]
“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]
“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present." [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]
Contemporary Calvinistic theologian R. C. Sproul writes, The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.”[[“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]
Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,
“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”
One cannot Biblically believe on the Lord Jesus without if effecting one's life, and to believe on Him as such is an act of implicit heart repentance that will be manifested in outward actions. And as works are saving faith in action, in contrasting mere intellectual faith, they can be said to justify, as they justify one as having a true faith, versus inert, dead.
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)
And thus believers are judged by their works as having true faith, (1Thes. 1:4-10) and being are fit to be recompensed, God rewarding faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of what it effected. Thus those who showed love to "the least of My brethren" enter glory, (Mt. 25:31-40) not because their works earned them the "gift' of eternal life, for they really deserve Hell, (cf. Rm. 6:23) but because such testifies of faith which works virtue.
Well done and spot on. Thank you for posting that.
Catholics are not merely contending for venerating saints, but thinking of men above that which is written (Peter and claimed infallible successors), and the hyperventilation hyperveneration of Mary.
Even if menounge means doubtless, yes, (Phi_3:8 Rom_10:18) then in response to perhaps a protoCatholic, the Lord of all, being offered a most prime opportunity to exalt Mary like as Catholics do as the uniquely most holy, virtuous, and beloved saint, etc , the Lord does not do so, or even say as He uniquely did of John the Baptist ("Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:" Lk. 7:28), but instead at best He said, "Indeed, she is blessed, but also blessed are all others that hear the word of God, and keep it," thus making no distinction btwn the two, much less that vast vast distinction they demand be made.
We wuz just talkin' about this at church tonight.
Catch the stuff early and most problems are merely a flesh wound.
Good to hear you are fine, otherwise.
This was strange.
Any reason given?
...and curious, too.
Wrong. Note how the eunuch was unable to understand the Holy Scripture until Philip — a disciple — explained it to him, and converted him.
Sorry, but neither of these is a Protest heresy; though the second one you list is a Catholic one.
Then why don’t you venerate me?
I named myself in an alliterative one.
I named myself in an alliterative one.
Also less typing!
I wasn't done playing with my food.
While he was living, he was like most Catholics, though that isn't offered for an excuse. Google papal bulls on Jews. An honest man will note the history.
As for anti-semitism in general as we know it in the 20th century and today, one has to be kidding. I've seen Hitler's claim, but it is interesting in light of his later work, that anyone believes what AH ever said. Course there may be some that do.
Further, the stubborn anti-semitism of the papacy can be seen in the 19th century, as outlined in #1337. An honest read of the sources says otherwise vis a vis that opinion that was posted.
As for the 30 Years War, that was a natural result of the realignment of states that came with the rejection of papal power that had been exercised in the secular realm by a long string of lousy Popes, a realm a Christian church had no business in from the get go. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, yet the papacy sure spent a lot of time building secular power.
Why would the "Catholic one" suppose that God "probably would not want a sinner in that role (the mother of the incarnate Son of God)"? Was not one of the main intents of the incarnation that Jesus was:
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)
And:
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)
There WAS no need for a "sinless" mother in order for the Christ to be born and be without sin so that He can make atonement for the sins of the world. That Jesus is God incarnate is how he could be sinless - it had nothing to do with His mother also needing to be. Mary was a human woman, born under the law, born under sin, and her faith in the Savior Jesus Christ is what saved her and cleansed her from all her sins just as He does for us.
That really IS the problem, Catholicism decides what is doctrine whether or not God's sacred word states it is so. I believe they have it exactly backwards. God tells us what is truth and our response is to believe it and obey. We don't get to make it up as we go along and superficially search for verification from Scripture afterward.
Thank you for your shut down of the typical straw man so often set up to dispute sola fide. If we actually understand who Jesus is and the sacrifice He made for our sins - I mean deep-down-in-the-gut getting it - how can we NOT also surrender our lives to Him? Once we understand that He is the Creator of the universe and He humbled Himself to enter into our experience of being a human being so that He could redeem us from eternal damnation separated from Him, how could we possibly imagine that our lives could ever be the same again?
We receive Jesus as Savior and Lord because He IS both. The sheer magnitude of understanding His calling to us and of His knowing us before the foundation of the world, conforming us into His image, is enough - or should be - to keep us ever in humble gratitude and love for His great mercy and grace. Anyone who says he is a believer in Christ, but who has had no deep-down heart change so that he can't help but notice it, should examine his heart to see if he is really in the faith. It is a serious and life-changing decision and one that we couldn't turn back from even if we tried. The indwelling Holy Spirit testifies to our spirits that we ARE the children of God. Praise be to Him! We must never treat the grace of God as meaningless. He saved us for HIS purposes and we will have all eternity to thank Him.
Yeah, those stinking sinners. Who needs them? They're just not good enough for God. Or for God to even use.
Romans 5:6-8 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Another thing to note.... If you think that Mary was sinless and yet still full of grace, it appears that you do not have the slightest clue what grace is all about.
One cannot be graced if one is without sin. Grace is ONLY for sinners.
So Mary cannot be sinless and yet graced. The whole premise of Mary being sinless falls apart.
I appreciate all posts to me, no matter how contentious; and I learn from them. Thank you.
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.