EWTN - The Journey Home - November 10, 2014 - Dale Ahlquist, convert from being a Baptist

EWTN ^ | 11.10.14

[Coleus]

Mon. Nov. 10 at 8:00 PM ET Tue. Nov. 11 at 1:00 AM ET Fri. Nov. 14 at 1:00 PM ET DALE AHLQUIST

Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society and former Baptist, joins Marcus to talk about his journey home to the Catholic Church.

[redleghunter]

Good link/post. Thanks.

[redleghunter]

>>Luther was a theologian in his own mind. A degree in Theology does not make one a theologian, but that degree, and years of studying in the faith<<

Moving the goal posts again.

Luther was a Doctor of Theology from Wittenberg University.

That would be the equivalent today to both a ThD and PhD in theology.

He was so "wet behind the ears" he was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible.

Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. tr. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985–93, 1:12–27.( Link)

[redleghunter]

>>If so many Catholics are converting to protestantism, why is the protestant faith shrinking in numbers in the United States and Catholicism growing.<<

You keep stating such, and daniel1212 keeps bludgeoning with the actual statistics showing otherwise.

[redleghunter]

>>(quoted in John Stoddard, “Rebuilding a Lost Faith”, (Rockford, IL: Tan Books), 136-137)<<

Do you have a link for this? Or did you copy it from a book in your library?

[metmom]

Didn’t I tell you?

[Elsie]

Colossians 1:13-14

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Colossians 1:13-14

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

[vladimir998]

Yes, through Baptism.

Romans 6:3-4

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

[Elsie]

Verses five, six and seven (For those of you who have been convinced you cannot know whether you are saved or not...)

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

[vladimir998]

Paul is not talking about absolute assurance.

Paul when he writes to the Philippians says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). This is not a promise of absolute assurance for he then says, “It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (1:7). The fact that the Philippians assisted Paul in his imprisonment and ministry showed that their hearts were with God and that it could be expected that they would most likely persevere and remain with God.

And Paul, writing at the end of his life, said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

There is no “once saved, always save” in Paul. That is a Protestant heresy.

[Elsie]

There is no “once saved, always save” in Paul. That is a Protestant heresy.

I know that.

Likewise, there is no "Once a Catholic; always a Catholic."

That's a Catholic delusion.

[Elsie]

Paul is not talking about absolute assurance.

Paul when he writes to the Philippians says, “And I am sure...

O...
K...

[boatbums]

Why is it always half quoted and snippet hunting with Luther condemners? Here from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html is the actual story about that topic. Will some polemicists read it and learn? Probably not, but hope springs eternal:

Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28 This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

[NKP_Vet]

“He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28”

The reason? He despised James. And he thought he was some kind of authority on the Bible. He was nothing. End of story.

[Elsie]

bump

[Elsie]

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther.

[redleghunter]

Categorically a smack down.

Good references.

[redleghunter]

Would you like to address post #252?

Some real smart Catholic theologians quoted there.

[redleghunter]

Bump back at ya.

[boatbums]

The reason? He despised James. And he thought he was some kind of authority on the Bible. He was nothing. End of story.

I guess in your mind, then, Aquinas is nothing, Augustine is nothing? Be honest, did you even READ the whole post, because your response sounds like you didn't bother?

[boatbums]

This same response has been given dozens of times (a few to the SAME people), but it doesn't seem to get through. It's like they are stuck on stop and don't have the intellectual honesty to admit they might have been taught something in error. Jesus as well as the Apostles met people with the same problem and, if they couldn't break through, I don't expect we will either. There is a blindness that is spiritual in nature and its source is pride.

John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. (John 3:27)

But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:64,65)