Replies

Where can I find Westminster in my Bible?

Right after Ad extirpanda. The context was your unreferenced description of SS, while Westminster represents a historical source relative to that.

But if you must resort to such inane remarks then it further testifies to your lack of a real argument.

Amazing how many varying interpretations of Scriptural "truth" are floating around these days.

Indeed, According to your interpretation, how many verses has Rome indisputably interpreted, outside of excluding that none could possibly contradict her?

And do you deny that RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty. (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers; http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp)

Scripture in its fulness uniquely providing for that, while it alone was the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law.

If that were true there would have been no time gap between the life of Christ and the completion of the written Gospels. That time gap cannot logically be glossed over. It does not follow that Scripture being "the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law," requires a completely sufficient revelation, but means all additional revelation/information writings had to be consistent with what was prior established, in principal or precept. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' (Isaiah 8:20)

Thus for instance, while a New Covenant with its changes could be promised, consistent with the principal seen in God making covenants, and the manner of attestation that affirmed them as Divine, yet the basic universal laws remained (so the homosexuals cannot use the "shellfish" argument). Yet in magnifying the Law, which came to be referred to as the first 5 books, the Lord could go back to Genesis and remove the liberal provision for divorce.

Meanwhile, the full sufficiency aspect of SS can be seen as consistent with the principal that what God provides must be sufficient for what God requires in out present state, which is what SS applies to, while foretelling of further complete revelation. (1Jn. 3:2)

The full sufficiency aspect of SS pertains to a complete canon, which canon is provided for by what was written before the last book, showing writings being recognized as being of God, and without an infallible magisterium. And as explained, its sufficiency pertains to formal and material forms, and explicit and implicit, including both precepts and principals, providing all that is necessary for salvation and Christian perfection. This thus includes things that "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (Westminster) - to conclude by reasoning. (I would add that i do not see true (though I do not know of any now) prophecy (Acts 11:28) is not contrary to full sufficiency, as it would not now add to Scripture which provides for it, but which is judged by Scripture as supreme: 1Thes. 5:20,21)

A respected Reformed author of the past states,

The perfection of Scripture asserted by us does not exclude either the ecclesiastical ministry (established by God for the setting forth and application of the word) or the internal power of the Holy Spirit necessary for conversion. It only excludes the necessity of another rule for external direction added to the Scriptures to make them perfect. A rule is not therefore imperfect because it requires the hand of the architect for its application. - http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/aside-to-formal-sufficiency-series.html

A form of full material sufficiency is what RCs (knowingly or not) engage in when attempting to show that Scripture supports all her doctrines, including that tradition is equal. And they can also reasonably concur the Scriptures are formally sufficient as in providing clear truth by which souls -if not all - can be saved by. And they could even allow that Scripture provides for recognition of writings as being of God, and thus for a canon. But what they mean by this includes that Scripture provides for the infallible magisterium which is necessary for assuredly knowing what Truth consists of and means, and thus what writings are of God, and thus that Scripture does not teach that this certainty and authority is possible without her.

Thus in essence Rome presumes to be the infallible supreme authority over all, including Scripture, even though Scripture manifestly contradicts that. Therefore, while one can debate the meaning of sufficiency, and RCs will argue it provides for traditions, the larger and ultimate issue is the supremacy of Scripture for versus supremacy of Rome, for rather than all truth claims being subservient to Scripture, seeing as even Rome holds that only its words are wholly inspired of God (versus "infallible" teachings or the forms in which "infallible" truths of Tradition are provided), Rome makes Scripture into a servant to serve her, as by her reasoning it simply cannot contradict her since she has decreed God is the author of both, ((Providentissimus Deus) and only her interpretation of Scripture can be correct in any conflict.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them...the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion,... Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm Even Cardinal Congar insists, “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399. Thus again as Manning states, "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour."

While "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..," (Westminster) yet not as infallible, anymore than those to sat in the seat of Moses were.

Scripture is above them all.

If that were the case, the written Gospels would have to have been available to Christians from the beginning.

Once again you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Being the supreme authority which all subsequent revelation must conform to as described and could not contradict does not require it to be complete, or militated against its supremacy, but provides for its completion. The canon is considered closed because the books therein outshine all competition, and like the incense God "copyrighted," there has been no more like it, and were recognized as classics are.

"Subsequently" being the weak link in your argument. St. Paul was clearly referring to traditions taught orally, but not written.

That is your weak link, as you cannot show one oral tradition Paul taught, it can only claim things were based upon the premise of her assured infallibility. What i can show is that whenever a revelation is called "the word of God/the Lord" then what it was is normally shown as revealed, presently or subsequently.

Faithfulness to continuance of the visible Church established and structured by Christ requires Apostolic succession.

Simply an assertion in lieu of an argument. It remains that the Holy Spirit shows the preaching of the Word being perpetuated thru pastors, and which was their main function, and not priests, and thus this is the ordination that the Holy Spirit instructs. (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7)

False. Grace is a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us through the merits of Christ for our salvation.

It seems you simply engage in knee-jerk denials without considering what i wrote. Again, "Salvation by grace thru merit," in which "by God's grace," one becomes good enough to enter heaven based on his own personal holiness, "by God's grace," is how Roman salvation works. Thus in contrast to what Scripture teaches in hearts being purified and justified by a living faith, and made to sit together with Christ now, and be present with the Lord at death or his return, as shown, or you must either become good enough enter Heaven, or suffer time in purgatory (and to atone for sins).

"All have sinned and have need of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ".

Amen, praise be to God! Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:5-6)

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 2:6)

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. (Hebrews 6:9)

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. (Hebrews 10:35-36)

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2:14-17)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

The justifying faith that saves is a faith that follows, but it is not the following that gains him eternal life, but the faith that is manifested by following, which God in grace, rewards though the recipients actually deserved damnation.