Posted on 10/30/2015 11:11:35 AM PDT by fishtank
Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ
By Eric Davis
OCTOBER 28, 2015
This Saturday, October 31, commemorates nearly 500 years since one of the greatest movements of God in church history; the Protestant Reformation. Up to the time of the Reformation, much of Europe had been dominated by the reign of Roman Catholicism. To the populace was propagated the idea that salvation was found under Rome and her system alone.
But as the cultural and theological fog cleared in Europe and beyond, God's people gained a clarity that had been mostly absent for centuries. The Reformers gained this clarity from keeping with a simple principle: sola scritpura, or, Scripture alone. As they searched the word of God, they discovered that Rome deviated radically on the most critical points of biblical Christianity. With one mind, God's people discerned from Scripture that, tragically, Roman Catholicism was a desecration to the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecripplegate.com ...
I'll try at least one more time, and see how it goes...
Actually you have ignored answers which refuted you.
Paladinan, it was you who chose to make the very bold statement that SS was not even close to being found in Scripture, which presumes you are familiar with it and the debate, but when challenged I see either ignorance or feigning the same, both of which warrant reproof. But then you complain about rudeness.
1) I assert that "sola Scriptura" is an unscriptural innovation which only became widespread as an idea in the 1500's, largely thanks to the errors of Luther. The idea is alien to (and makes logical nonsense of) both Scripture and the first millenium of Church history.
But you failed to even define what you consider SS to be, and failed to understand or to answer informed questions regarding it. Thus your denial here has no more weight than your prior one, and the questions asked await answers.
2) I assert, among other things, that the 66-book Protestant Bible is a fragment of the true Bible: it omits seven entire books (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees), and fragments of at least two other books (Esther and Daniel)...
I was just told by another RC that the Bible was compiled in 367 A.D. by St. Athanasius but Martin Luther removed 7 books. Is your argument that the contents of the canon was settled from the 4th century on till that maverick Luther came along and removed 7 books, in rebellion against Rome. And that the OT Prot. canon does not have ancient support?
And or is it based upon the premise that magisterial infallibility is essential for a canon, and that its infallible decree is necessary for the authority of Scripture?
and that appeals to "sola Scriptura" would be crippled by that fact, alone.
Which is based upon the premise that our canon does not have ancient support, which it does, and that the 7 books of Rome (the EO slightly differ) are necessary, and thus were part of the universal canon of Rome which distinctively Luther rebelled against. Which is more propaganda .
In addition your idea of SS is a strawman if it supposes that it excludes the need for the church, etc. More on this later.
3) I assert that sola-Scriptura Protestants haven't the foggiest idea how the Bible came to be,
Which is just another of the bare assertions which you have a proclivity to make, not even bothering to qualify it as "many sola-Scriptura Protestants" which would be true of many and many RCs as well. Of course we do not know what you consider an SS Prot. to be, and as Caths often define "Protestant" so broadly that it includes Jim Jones, then who knows what an SS Prot. is. I can only presume that you reject the likes of foremost scholars F. F. Bruce (The Canon of Scripture) and Bruce Metzger (The Canon of The New Testament) as being such, unlike a B. B. Warfield .
Perhaps men as Robert Laird Harris , "Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study," and John Woodbridge, "Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon" and Norman L. Geisler "A General Introduction to the Bible" (with its five principles for canonicity) are also to be rejected.
On the Internet a search on development of the canon of even a relative few evangelical type sites provide many sources on this, but perhaps no one reads them.
In any case, since you have no evidence that sola-Scriptura Protestants haven't the foggiest idea how the Bible came to be then this assertion hardly warrants further correction.
why (i.e. the Catholic Church discerned which books were true Scripture, and which were not)..
But what significance does that claim have unless you mean there must be an infallible decree for us to know what the Bible consists of, as otherwise you only have a general non-infallible consensus. And being the steward of Scripture means Rome is that infallible authority? Is that the reason for your claim, and therefore to dissent from this authority would be rebellion against God? I know i asked this before but your claim must have a purpose.
Your claim also ignores the essential basis for a settled canon. For one, why would the Lord's or apostolic sanction even have weight? On what basis did they Lord and His apostles establish their authority? Why did they see these writings as being Divine?
and they're left with an insoluble conundrum when asked to explain how Scripture could have decided which books were actual Scripture
Actually SS does not require that Scripture decide all of which books are actual Scripture, only that Scripture provides for discernment of what is of God. If one writing can be established as being Scripture then so can all. But RCs are so focused on their church that they cannot see that.
) I assert that all sola-Scriptura claims of "all believers will be guided by the Spirit to all necessary truth, and all necessary true interpretations of Scripture, on their own" are pure fantasy and wish-fulfillment, having no basis in Scripture, in logic, or in historical practice (cf. the massive shattering of Protestantism).
It is sad that RCs like yourself are deluded into thinking that they are engaging in a massive shattering of Protestantism when, esp. with your "all" and "will" what they are doing is arguing against strawmen of RC propaganda or ignorant Prots.
No less than the Westminster Confession, a standard historical SS document, states,
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..." — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
Certainly, as with RCs, the individual decides whether he will go along with what is taught, but in neither case does it militate against the warrant and authority of the magisterial office. . Ensured infallibility of office is itself never seen or promised in Scripture, nor necessary. Moreover, due to what is actually preached in word and in deed, it is evidence that liberals feel more at home in Rome then in conservative evangelical churches.
What is historical is that of believers discerning what is of God, even in dissent from the historical magisterium, but to which, as to civil authorities, general submission is enjoined, as authoritative. The NT magisterium flows from that of the OT, dissent from which was a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) but which did not preclude that there could be valid dissent. Which is how the NT church began.
You can argue for a central magisterium, which i agree with in principal, but the Roman papacy actually works against that, being unscriptural and non-historical in the early church.
I'm familiar with formal and material sufficiency; but I'm also familiar enough with the English language to know that you jumbled it, quite badly (perhaps in an attempt to sound erudite? Or at least too hasty?). Here's your quote to which I responded: And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?
"formal aspect of the sufficiency aspect"? Clumsy, at best... since you're using the same word ("aspect") to refer to two different orders of the topic,
Your response was that even though the context was SS, you did not know what I was referring to (as well as SS negating the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority), yet it is a very common aspect of the SS debate, and is used by RCs themselves.
And as aspect refers to a feature, an element of SS, the question is whether the feature of sufficiency only refers to the formal element, or includes the material aspect as well.
yes, I assert that Scripture (the full 73-book canon, mind you) is materially sufficient--i.e. it contains, either implicitly or explicitly, all necessary "raw content/data" for salvation.
And a reference for SS states that "by material sufficiency we mean that all that is necessary to be believed for faith and morals is revealed in Scripture." (Sola Scriptura, by David T. King and William Webster) Expanding that, material sufficiency means that Scripture provides for, by revelation, such things as reason, natural revelation, the church, teachers etc.
and the Church has always taught that.
As meaning, “Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation†[Source: New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967)
I deny that Scripture (even the full 73-book canon) is formally sufficient--i.e. that it could somehow suffice ALONE for that task (without infallible interpretation,
That, "infallible interpretation" is key, as without then all you have is fallible interpretation, yet besides the fact that you to not have and cannot obtain infallible interpretation from Rome for more than a few verses of Scripture, ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture, nor was it ever necessary for God to preserve Truth and faith. God actually often did so by raising up men from without the magisterium which they reproved. Which is how the church began.
without the Catholic Church to assemble the original Bible in the first place, without the Church to implement and dispense the necessary graces to USE that content toward salvation, etc.).
Well if formal sufficiency means such things as the church then Westminster would not say It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, nor,
Cp. VI: ...we acknowledge...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. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
How then is Scripture formally sufficient? Westminster states: “The whole counsel of God [a term from Acts 20 which Paul said he declared], concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.â€
To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things).
That Scripture alone as the wholly inspired body of Divine Truth and assured word of God, is the supreme standard, and contains what is essential is affirmed, and what is excluded is not means by which Scripture was written, and the ability to reason and the illumination and guidance of the Spirit and discernment thereby, nor the viability of the teaching office, etc., all of which is provided under material sufficiency, for what is not guaranteed is that all can sufficiently understand Scripture with no other external helps (though some may sufficiently do so in salvific essentials), or that its perspicuity is such that it disallows any disagreement, for which the magisterial office is provided.
What is excluded as necessary are additions to Scripture, as in Roman tradition being equal to Scripture, and essential for salvation faith, and life. A soul may read such a text as Peter's sermon in Acts 10 and become born again just as the hearers of it there did, and by further study deduce the whole counsel of God, including by a "due use of the ordinary means." Yet "due use of the ordinary means" in understanding the whole counsel of God can include teaching helps. The oft-quoted 17th century reformed scholastic theologian Francis Turretin states in responding to that issue,
The question does not concern the perspicuity which does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e., the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily. We only wish to proscribe the darkness which would prevent the people from reading the Scriptures as hurtful and perilous and compel them to have recourse to tradition when they might rest in the Scriptures alone. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 1 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), II.xvii.vi, p. 144)
Moreover, there are well known SS Prots such as John Piper which are not cessationists but allow for Pentecostal gifts.
Thus SS is not a guarantee that all can understand all the essentials of the Christian life without external helps, or without disagreement. If it did, there would be no affirmation of the teaching office to settle disputes. And some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word.
SS does not claim Scripture tells us everything that can be known, but that it provides what is necessary for faith and Godliness, directly formally providing clear teaching sufficient for souls to be saved and growth in grace, as Ps. 119 abundantly declares even as regards just the Law, but materially provides not only for the very writing and transmission of Scripture, but more grace by way of preaching and helps for salvation and growth in grace toward completeness.
Thus even formal sufficiency includes what is provided under material sufficiency, and for souls discerning what is of God, and thus your idea that SS is contrary to providing for a canon is refuted. While the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, making wise the simple, (Ps. 19) the means of providing it was required. But what the means may also may provide is not equal to the law itself, but RCs reason that since (some of) Scripture came out of oral tradition, then what Rome says is of oral T is equal to Scripture. Which is based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, for which Rome invokes tradition.
Consider belief in the Assumption. Since belief in this is a binding requirement, it must be considered essential for the Christian. But where is this event concerning Mary (let alone her crowning and exaltation as an almost almighty demi-godess) recorded or promised in Scripture? It is possible, but it lacks testimony from the earliest centuries, but which story was a later development and RC scholars were against it belonging to the “apostolic tradition" at the time belief in it was made binding by papal fiat. But Rome can claim to "remember" what Scripture and history "forgot" to preserve.
Paul enjoined the Thessalonians to keep what was orally preached, yet Rome cannot tell us what it was, but the veracity of his preaching was established upon Scriptural substantiation. While Paul provided new wholly inspired revelation, which Rome cannot claim, a SS preacher can call for hearers to obey the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, under the premise that they are, and subject to proof thereby which the noble Bereans subjected the preaching of Paul to, (Acts 17:11) and the whole church went forth "preaching the word." (Acts 8:4)
Good, as that is not what SS means, as while RC argue that SS makes every man a pope, they cannot claim ensured personal infallibility whenever they speak according to a certain scope and subject criteria, nor can any office as per Rome,
If I take your meaning correctly (and I'm not at all sure I do,
You are not, as "they" refers to the SS adherents not being popes. I should have made that clear, yes.
. If you're claiming, "Catholic teaching suffers from subjectivity, too, because the hearers of Magisterial teaching are fallible!", then I'd answer: that's true... but not nearly to the same extent, and not nearly on the same order, as Protestant "sola Scriptura" efforts, for at least three reasons:
1) We have a living person (or persons) whom we can ask for clarifications, if we misunderstand something from Rome; we cannot, however, "ask" the Bible to clarify whether our given understanding of a passage is right or wrong
So do we, so you must be referring to infallible answers as otherwise we both only have fallible souls. And indeed, even what RC bishops understand Rome as meaning see variant interpretations (even popes can disagree with a Burke as to who is a member that can receive the Eucharist). Meanwhile, just which teachings are infallible are subject to interpretations, as can their meaning, and to suppose you can get an infallible answer to questions concerning such is absurd.
And how many Bible verses has Rome infallibly interpreted? Thus as we both realistically have recourse to only fallible men then your 1st reason is invalid. But if you want to argue that we must have an infallible authority besides what Scripture says, then how did souls rightly know that an Elijah was a prophet indeed?
Moreover, in the few time Rome has presumed to infallibly settled controversies then it has taken the problem of personal errors of belief to a corporate level, just as certain cults do which also effectively operate under the RC model of sola ecclesia.
Rome's ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not of Scripture, but Rome declares that she uniquely possesses it, and which is the real basis for RC assurance of doctrine.
2) Sola-Scriptura Protestantism contains outright logical contradictions (i.e. one or both MUST logically be false) within itself. Seventh-Day Adventists believe that worshiping on Sunday (or any day except Saturday) is the "mark of the beast" and worthy of damnation; the vast majority of sola-Scripture Protestants reject that idea totally. Who's right? Both appeal to Scripture "alone".
Once again your objection is based upon a misunderstanding common in RC apologetic of SS, that the essential sufficient understanding of SS must mean such transparent clarity as to exclude all possibly misunderstandings, while would again be a contradiction to the Scriptural understanding that "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith."
In addition, to reject the validity of something upon the premise that disagreement is seen under it would also exclude the RC alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme infallible authority.
RCs themselves can and so disagree about many many things, and sometimes the best the pope can do is to call a truce, not decide who is right, as in Congregatio de Auxiliis .
3) Scripture itself--the principle that "anything not in Scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience" and "Scripture alone is the norm by which all salvific matters are to be judged"--is nowhere to be found in Scripture. All the "classic attempts" to show some sort of "sola Scriptura" (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, etc.) are wild stretches of passages which don't come close to proving what Protestants wish them to prove.
Actually what civil authorities decree is binding, but we are dealing with conscience, with binding beliefs. Yet as you said, Scripture contains either implicitly or explicitly, all necessary "raw content/data" for salvation, while it also provides clear teaching on salvation and morality, and if more binding beliefs were needed for that, meaning what Rome progressively decreed, then NT souls could not have been saved and or grow unto perfection. Rather, even the Law is said to convert the soul, while God provided more grace under the better New Covenant for salvation and maturity.
And "anything not in Scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience" as regards corporate obedience, is sound, as unless you can claim Rome speaks as wholly inspired apostles, which you cannot, then Scripture is the only actual wholly inspired transcendent body of Truth. Would you have us consider the non-wholly inspired decrees of popes as binding when God is not the author of them as he is of Scripture? Sad if you would.
You would have us believe that what Rome decrees is apostolic doctrine, even if such a common thing as prayer to created beings in Heaven is utterly absent in Scripture, despites it approx. 200 prayers , and in which only God is shown able to hear the incessant multiplicity of prayers, and Christ is said to be the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God. (1Tim. 2:5)
Claiming things that are absent in Scripture are part of apostolic doctrine either presumes one is a wholly inspired apostle, whose teachings were still established upon Scriptural substantiation, or it is akin to Gnosticism.
In addition, that Scripture alone is the standard, the supreme authority by which all salvific matters and religious truth claims are to be judged is abundantly evidenced .
But what is utterly absent in Scripture is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, as per Rome. Instead what is Scriptural is that of common souls judging what is of God, with the non-infallible magisterium judging matters too hard for them, which judgment is binding as regards obedience, as with civil courts, but not as regards conscience.
But this allows for the possibility of dissent and of replacing corrupt authorities with sound ones, which is anathema to Rome, and thus she cannot tolerate it, though in reality today, her multitudes can disagree with many things she teaches, esp, since V2 showed how past teaching can be interpreted, and still be treated as members in good standing in life and in death.
Beyond the limited and largely paper unity of the paper tiger, it is those who hold most strongly to the most fundamental element of the Reformation, that of the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired accurate word of God, that testify to the most unity in basic core beliefs , in clear contrast to the overall fruit of Rome.
as that is a novelty which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
Given that "sola Scriptura" itself is an unscriptural (and therefore self-contradictory) novelty propagated by Luther and co., that's a rather ironic thing for you to say.
Given that it is both your version of "sola Scriptura" that is an unscriptural novelty, as is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office propagated by popes and co., then that's a rather ironic thing for you to say.
(?!?) "Caiaphas"? Who on earth was talking about Caiaphas? Are you getting messages mixed between FR and your iPhone messages, or something? :)
Again, you claim to have debated this issue for the better part of 25 years and yet you do not know that invoking Caiaphas getting an annual prophecy is a rather standard proof text for RCs attempting to show papal infallibility is based on Scripture? That has even been argued on FR.
As an aside, re: your comments (which sounded oddly snide and self-congratulatory) about my alleged unfamiliarity with the topic/debate: I assure you, I've debated this issue for the better part of 25 years
Which is no more credible than before, unless you do not actually read SS type sites and debates, as all you reiterate are standard misunderstandings and invalid objections which have long ago been refuted. Inj summation,
that the 66-book Protestant Bible is a fragment of the true Bible even if a quite large fragment, is false, being based upon the presupposition Prot canon does not have very ancient support, and that the 7 books of Rome are necessary, and thus were part of the universal infallible canon of Rome which distinctively Luther rebelled against. Which as said, is more propaganda .
SS Prots are not left to an " insoluble conundrum when asked to explain how Scripture could have decided which books were actual Scripture," as that is provided for under the material sufficiency, thus enabling its formally sufficiency in essentials.
SS does not mean "all believers will be guided by the Spirit to all necessary truth, and all necessary true interpretations of Scripture, on their own," for while what is essential is provided by Scripture, and is manifest or can be deduced from it, this does not exclude external helps as being ordinary means, but does not require what Rome channels out of her amorphous oral tradition as binding beliefs.
That being "formally sufficient--i.e. that it could somehow suffice ALONE for that task (without infallible interpretation, without the Catholic Church to assemble the original Bible in the first place,"
is an invalid argument, as formally sufficiency depends upon what material sufficiency provides as regards transmission, like as Christ "depended" upon human instrumentation, though in both cases God could have accomplished His purpose without it.
In addition, Scripture nowhere provides for - nowhere examples, promises or necessitates - ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome.
That Catholics do not have the same problem with interpreting pronouncements of the Magisterium as Prots, since they "have a living person (or persons) whom we can ask for clarifications," is effectively false. The idea that RCs can get infallible answers to their questions bya living person (or persons) is simply not reality, thus as regarding living person (or persons) they are left with non-infallible interpreters of infallible teaching.
Meanwhile, speaking under the premise of infallibility which Rome has done a few (debatable) times results in the problem of erroneous private interpretation becoming corporate error. Including believing that Rome possesses this unique protection of infallibility. Which leads to calling for implicit submission to lower magisterial teachings. Under the RC model souls should have followed the judgment of the historical mag. which sat in the seat of Moses.
That Sola-Scriptura Protestantism contains outright logical contradictions due to disagreements is false, being based upon the false premise that SS must mean all will come to the same judgment, versus having recourse to an infallible source, while making a office of non-inspired men that transcendent supreme infallible source is not Scriptural, but is cultic and more dangerous then disagreements among the laity.
That "anything not in Scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience" on the corporate level (though believer need to obey conscience) is sound unless there are other bodies of words of wholly inspired Truth, which Rome can only presume she is.
That Scripture as the wholly inspired body of Divine Truth and assured word of God alone is the supreme standard by which all salvific matters are to be judged --is abundantly evidenced in Scripture.
You could argue that the church supplying supplementary teachings based upon oral tradition is provided for by Scripture, but unless you can claim to be speaking under the full inspiration of Scripture, i do not accept that such requires belief.
Well, that only took me about 6 hours, by the grace of God!
Have a nice day, Gamecock. Go talk to someone who wants to talk to you; I prefer to stick to people who can be civil and discuss things rationally. Ciao.
So... when you say "add to salvation requirements", how do you get that? Where did you get your "list of requirements", and how do you know that you have the right list?
I am. I do. Tschuss!
Luther translated all of those books, put them in an appendix nad had a similar view of them as many other Catholic scholars. (Some who were deemed Saints BTW> Is EENS still Catholic dogma, is the requirement to be subject to the Roman pontiff in order to be saved still Catholic teaching?
It would be, but compromising on Scripture isn't a safe activity, nor is acquiescing to false doctrine. For those Catholics who hold to the Gospel truths I commend them. The rest of it, not so much.
I’m not as smart as you all.
I’ll just stick with what we sing at our Parish during Lent:
“Jesus, remember me, when you come into your kingdom”.
If Dismas made it, there’s hope for me. :)
Pax!
Sorry for the delay; real life extraordinarily busy, at the moment. I’ll write a bit when I can...
Dismas 'made it' because of his faith in Christ, not his work or his 'church'.
People don't realize how things used to be.
No Reformation, no knowledge of Christianity.
I was merely pointing out that works don’t save us. And I don’t think Dismas professed Jesus as his Lord and Savior nor came up for an altar call. Doubtful he was baptized and certainly did not receive the sacraments.
But let’s admit that the Bible is difficult to figure out and that’s why I defer to authority. For example, I have trouble reconciling the goat and sheep parable with the apparent salvation of Dismas. Doubtful that Dismas clothed the naked. Doubtful that he visited the imprisoned nor fed the hungry. The list goes on, but you get the idea.
I think we Papists and you Protestants have a lot more in common than we care to admit.
Pax!
Because you look past the fact that the goats and sheep were separated before they got to that judgement. Surely there were many goats who had clothed the poor, fed the hungry etc. But the separation had been done based on the faith of the individual. The 'good' work of the goats brought them nothing because it wasn't a result of faith.
But he did: Luke 23:42King James Version (KJV)
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
That is the context of the hymn you mentioned in a prior post.
I believe you took him to school and “took him to church” in a fantastic post.
Your point is well taken.
I just wish somebody could answer me how you reconcile the salvation of Dismas with the goat and the sheep parable. I know they can’t be contradictory but nonetheless they seem at odds. I am not asking the question rhetorically - I really would like someone to answer it. One thought I had is that the sheep and goats are those not covered by the blood of Christ but that doesn’t square up too well with the treatment of the sheep.
I think one must approach the scriptures with humility and an eagerness to learn anew. And listen to other viewpoints.
The believer's rightness before God is not based on his/her own merit, that rightness is based on Christ's merit and that merit is accessed through faith that God bestows as a gift. After that the good works we do in faith are creditable, but not as righteousness for salvation but as doing our Father's will. Apart from Christ we can do no works pleasing to God.
Thanks the tutorial. I guess I still don’t see how those passages answer my question. (Which probably says more about my inferior reasoning process than anything)
Doesn’t that parable seem to be saying that works are important and that lack of works might condemn you? I suppose one might say that works are the fruits of faith but deeds shape the heart more than vice versa.
Guess scripture isn’t always so obvious:)
Not at all. The sheep are sheep before the talk of works. How did they become sheep? By faith in Christ their Redeemer. Notice that the sheep ask the same question as the goats. "When did we see you...?" The sheep did their deeds because as Eph 2:10 says "10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." They had pleasing deeds because of their faith and did the things the Lord had ordained them to do.
The goats on the other hand are separated from the sheep as well before. Why? They weren't believers. They ask the same question of the Lord "when did we see you....?" Look at some prominent advocates of human care and what the world would call charitable. Are they all Christians? Have they done more than you as far as you know? Surely there is a reward for doing all those good things. The answer lies in the 'why' of it. The Lord speaks in the Bible of those who make a show of their works and notes that they have already received their reward: Matt ^:6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
The goats may have many more 'good deeds' than you, but they didn't do them for God as they didn't believe in Him. Their works, when they don't call on the name of the Lord are as Isaiah said, filthy rags.
Yes, and yes, respectively.
but when challenged I see either ignorance or feigning the same,
Really? Perhaps you might explain what it is, about which I'm allegedly "ignorant"? And "feigning" is something of a reach, since you know neither my mind nor my heart, yes?
both of which warrant reproof.
First, you assume (without logical basis) that I'm ignorant. Then you decide that I need to be "reproved" for my ignorance (an odd and presumptuous choice of words). Finally, your reply uses a tone of "reproof" (and reproof can be gentle or harsh, humble or imperious, rational or irrational, etc.) which seems to be somewhere in the ballpark of "belligerent sneering".
Forgive me, FRiend, but: in my experience, those who fill up their posts will imperious huffing and puffing and insults to the opponent's intelligence are trying to cover up their own weakness. If your position is strong and logically valid, it'll stand, even if you're civil and polite. Bluster simply makes one look insecure and weak (and crass).
But then you complain about rudeness.
Not complaining, exactly; I was taking verbal note of it. You're quite free to be as obnoxious as you wish; I'll just use the level of civility to judge whether conversing with you is worth the time and aggravation.
But you failed to even define what you consider SS to be,
Perhaps you missed my point #3, in the very comment to which you're replying? I admit, I lost a word when editing: "Scripture" (the first word of the paragraph) should have read "Scripture ALONE". It should read:
3) [Sola Scriptura] itself--the principle that "anything not in Scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience" and "Scripture alone is the norm by which all salvific matters are to be judged"--is nowhere to be found in Scripture.and failed to understand or to answer informed questions regarding it.
Oh, piffle! You're blowing smoke, FRiend, and the reader knows it. If you're really in such a bloody rush to see a more detailed explanation of my position (and responses), search the Religion forum for my comments, with "sola scriptura" as a search term; there are hundreds, I assure you (and you were on many of those threads, which makes me wonder about your memory!), and I'm getting a bit tired of repeating the same points to the same group of people, ad nauseam. Otherwise, if you're a bit more patient and civil, I'll be more inclined to give those replies to you, yet again. It's largely up to you. Be obnoxious, and I'll spend my time elsewhere; be polite, and I'll be happy to go over the old ground again.
I was just told by another RC that the Bible was compiled in 367 A.D. by St. Athanasius but Martin Luther removed 7 books.
St. Athanasius had input, but the canon of Scripture was formalized at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), the decisions of which were ratified by the Pope soon afterward (though the complete canon was mentioned earlier than that). Luther not only removed the 7 "deuterocanonical" books from the Canon altogether (and placed them in an index in the back with what he considered "apocrypha"), but he also wanted to do away with the Epistle of St. James ("St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."--Luther, 1522 Preface to the New Testament), the Book of Revelation, and a few others which escape me at the moment. Luther wasn't alone in wanting to jettison the books (and parts of books) in question, but he was the first to give the idea such widespread "press".
Is your argument that the contents of the canon was settled from the 4th century on till that maverick Luther came along and removed 7 books, in rebellion against Rome.
I wouldn't put it so dramatically, but: yes... with the caveat that Luther wasn't the only one to do so during the era of the Protestant rebellion; he was just the first "popularizer" of the idea.
And that the OT Prot. canon does not have ancient support?
"Ancient support"? :) Rather vague, yes? But I'll answer as best I can...
By the time of Christ, there were two OT canons in use: the Palestinian Canon (which excluded the so-called "Greek books"--i.e. the ones Protestants abandon), and the Alexandrian Canon (a.k.a. the Septuagint, translated from Hebrew to Greek in the years 250-50 B.C., or thereabouts, which has all 73 complete books). The NT quotes freely from both canons (there are noticeable differences in wording, when the NT quotes from one canon vs. the other); and, in fact, the NT quotes from the Septuagint more often than it does from the Palestinian canon (Google the references--they're long, but you might start with Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton's preface and introduction to the Septuagint.
The reason the non-Christian Jews eventually rejected the Septuagint was at least twofold:
1) The Jews found that the Christians could more readily use the Septuagint against them, when defending Christian claims against Jewish doubts.
2) Some of the Greek books contained high praise for the Romans (1 Maccabees 8, especially, is almost completely filled with praises of the nobility, etc., of the Romans); and after 70 A.D., I think anyone could see why the Jews of the time would have an emotional reaction against such passages.
In short: it was for self-serving reasons that the Palestinian Jews rejected the Septuagint and embraced the Palestinian Canon exclusively. Later, Martin Luther co-opted this idea (of embracing the Palestinian Canon exclusively--ironic, since the anti-semitic Luther was now pretending to let the Jews dictate which books were Scripture and which were not! I wonder why he embraced the NT, then, since the Jews do not!), since many of the deuterocanonical books contained teachings which he rejected (e.g. prayer for the dead, in 2 Maccabees 12, etc.).
Does that address that idea, for you?
And or is it based upon the premise that magisterial infallibility is essential for a canon, and that its infallible decree is necessary for the authority of Scripture?
Common sense, if nothing else, insists that there must be an infallible way to discern which books are "inerrant Scripture", and which are not... or else the "inerrancy" of those books will be of little use (since there'd always be doubt as to whether the "right books" were chosen). Otherwise, Protestants are left with what R.C. Sproul calls "a fallible collection of infallible books" (which is nonsense, on its face). Protestants who try to account for the current "table of contents" of Scripture are at a loss to explain how (apart from the Catholic Church) those books were chosen, and why that list shoudl be trusted as "absolutely true, without error" (aside from mere personal feeling/sentiment about the matter--which is a poor sort of way to decide such things).
In addition your idea of SS is a strawman if it supposes that it excludes the need for the church, etc. More on this later.
I did not claim that. (See above: the definitions of "sola Scriptura" which I quoted were taken from anti-Catholic commenters from Free Republic, in fact. True, they were only two definitions out of many... but I had to pick and narrow it down, somehow.) But your definition of "Church" certainly seems to differ from mine; most anti-Catholics regress to saying that "the Church" is a loose collection of "all believers in Jesus" (or some similar idea)... which is ridiculous, since it presupposes that the hundreds and thousands of flatly contradictory "doctrines" within Protestantism are all taught by the "Church of Jesus Christ". (Recall: do you belive the SDA idea that worship on Sunday is punishable by damnation, and that all who do so "take the mark of the beast upon themselves"? By the "all believers in Jesus = Church" idea, that's Church doctrine!)
Re: the idea that SS Protestants "haven't the foggiest idea how the Bible came to be": unless one is willing to embrace the "fallible collection of infallible books" (or some other type of wish-fulfillment, re: the reliability of the Bible's contents), one cannot hold to a "true and secure canon of Scripture" and still embrace "sola Scriptura".
Taking one of the earlier definitions of SS (as "Scripture is the only norm of faith, by which all articles of faith are to be measured and tested", or some such wording--that one comes from Luther, BTW), it's obvious that "Scripture testing the contents of Scripture" is a logical absurdity--akin to (as I mentioned before) choosing one's own biological father. Scripture cannot decide what belongs in Scripture. If you disagree, then I'd gently ask why you'd think that the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply in this case!
No less than the Westminster Confession, a standard historical SS document,
:) I'm tempted to ask if you subscribe to the Westminster Confession, and whetehr you think it's necessary to do so for salvation... but I'll pass that by.
states, "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..." [http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]"
Fine... let's look at that. First, I did not claim that SS throws away everything but the Bible; I claimed only (and I was merely quoting anti-Catholic SS believers on FR) that SS holds Scripture to be the only norm by which matters of faith are to be tested. As such, your own accusation of "straw man" against me is, in itself, a straw man.
Second: what authority do these "Westminsterian synods and councils" have, and from what authority? Who decides whether the decisions of these groups are correct, or incorrect, and on what basis? Mere "appeals to Scripture" will get (as a FReeper on this thread jokingly said) "11 opinions for every 10 SS believers". Even supposing a modern miracle of unanimity between those 10 people: how would anyone know whether that unanimous opinion is right? Is it simply a "go with the majority vote" idea (which frightens me to no end, frankly, in matters of Faith/truth)?
Re: the idea of the Church teaching material sufficiency of Scripture, you wrote:
As meaning, "Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation"Â [Source: New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967)
Now, that's an interesting point (though not, perhaps, the one you intended), and I'll need to correct myself on one detail: after digging a bit more, I found that the idea of Scripture being "materially sufficient" is COMPATIBLE with Catholic teaching, but (to my surprise--I guess my original source wasn't very careful to make distinctions!) it isn't taught dogmatically... i.e. it's still up for debate. It's possible to be a faithful Catholic and hold to either side of the "Is the Bible materially sufficient, or not?" debate. (I personally think that Scripture IS materially sufficient, in the sense that every last Catholic dogma is contained at least implicitly in Scripture... but apparently the Church hasn't pronounced on this particular point, yet. I stand corrected, on that.)
One point which HAS been pronounced beyond doubt in Catholic teaching, however, is the fact that Scripture is NOT formally sufficient as a guide or norm for faith, since it isn't designed to work alone, nor can it interpret itself, nor can it determine its own contents, etc.
That, "infallible interpretation" is key, as without then all you have is fallible interpretation, yet besides the fact that you to not have and cannot obtain infallible interpretation from Rome for more than a few verses of Scripture,
See my previous comment (#136), re: the chasm of difference between the slight and easily-remedied subjectivity/ambiguity which Catholics have, vs. the utter and insoluble subjectivity forced upon Protestants by "sola Scriptura".
Aside from this: are you aware that you've just committed a "tu quoque" fallacy, here (i.e. even if your point were accurate [and it isn't], pointing out the leaky boat of another person doesn't fix the leaks in your own boat)?. Either sola Scriptura can lead to certain truth, or it can't... and since the stakes are eternal salvation vs. eternal damnation, it's not a matter about which we can afford to be casual or chevalier, or leave to chance.
Cp. VI: ...we acknowledge...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.
(*wry look*) Of course! So... using the "general rules of the Word" and the "light of nature", I can now pronounce any Sunday-worshipping Protestants to be in danger of hellfire, since they do not keep the Sabbath, as per the Commandment of the Lord. After all... the Seventh Day Adventists use "the Word" and "the light of nature", as well... right? They think they do, at least... and they would not appreciate it if you were to say that they don't! (You wouldn't have any solid basis for judging them, anyway, since their "sola Scriptura" conclusions are no less secure than yours.)
You don't see the problem, here?
How then is Scripture formally sufficient? Westminster states: "The whole counsel of God [a term from Acts 20 which Paul said he declared], concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
:) Lovely. But: why should I take Westminster's word for anything? I'm quite serious: what infallible charism or mandate do they have to bind Christian consciences to accept what they say as "true"? I hope you're not suggesting that I take their collective opinion simply on your say-so...
To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things).
This begs more questions than I can easily count! Yes, I know that this was in the context of you trying to show that "Sola Scriptura doesn't exclude ordinary means, light of nature, etc."; well and good. But it leaves you with two options: either prove the assertion (i.e. on what basis do you assert that "ordinary means"--whatever they might mean by that--are guaranteed to lead to a "sufficient understanding" of Divine revelation (or anything else)?), or abandon the "sola" in "sola Scriptura", since it's never to be used alone for ANYTHING. (I'd remind you that the Catholic Church champions the value and necessity of the Scriptures, too; She merely reminds the faithful of the plain fact that Scripture is not, and cannot be, meant to be used ALONE, and it never claims to be.)
ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture,
First of all: you're assuming your own conclusion in order to try to prove it (which is a logica fallacy, when last I checked); you're demanding proof from Scripture (alone!) that the Roman Catholic Church holds an infallible Magisterium... and no such proof is necessary for those who reject the silly, illogical, and unscriptural idea of "sola Scriptura".
Second: Scripture does indicate that Christ's Church will be the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15--and I wonder how that could be, if She were capable of error in Her teaching), that the Holy Spirit will "lead you [plural--said to the Eleven at the Last Supper] into all truth" (John 16:13), that both St. Peter and the other first bishops were given Christ's Own authority to bind and loose matters of faith, both in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18), and that the Church was the final arbiter in matters concerning sin and spiritual offenses (Matthew 18:15-17). Whereas SS Protestants say "the Bible alone is the norm!"--which is nowhere taught in the Bible (and it would be circular/invalid if it did, anyway).
Third: common sense and plain logic require that "sufficient and certain knowledge of salvation-related matters" requires not only inerrant data, but an infallible guardian and interpreter... or else human sin and error will corrupt, dilute, and destroy/lose that inerrant content in rather short order.
Moreover, there are well known SS Prots such as John Piper which are not cessationists but allow for Pentecostal gifts.
Which, I hope you can now see, has nothing whatsoever to do with any point of mine.
Thus SS is not a guarantee that all can understand all the essentials of the Christian life without external helps, or without disagreement. If it did, there would be no affirmation of the teaching office to settle disputes.
This, in logic, is called "begging the question". To wit: you refer to a "teaching office". Well and good; at least your argument acknowledges that an external interpreter is needed. But... how do you judge the results of the teaching office? And which teaching office do you have in mind? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Unitarian Pentecostals (who reject the Trinity, and who believe that one is not among the elect unless one speaks in tongues)? The Christian Scientists (who believe that all sickness is illusion)? The Anglicans (who wrote the Westminster Confession, from which you copied so extensively), who believe that "gay marriage" is in conformity with God's Will? Which teaching authority do you have in mind, and how can I know that your decision is the right one (and not simply based on your inherited biases and/or personal tastes)?
nor was [the Magisterium] ever necessary for God to preserve Truth and faith.
Even five seconds of clear thinking would show that that idea is nonsense. See above.
God actually often did so by raising up men from without the magisterium which they reproved. Which is how the church began.
This is too vague for me to address, yet; do you have examples in mind?
What is excluded as necessary are additions to Scripture, as in Roman tradition being equal to Scripture,
:) Ah, yes... the epithet "Roman", which whets the indignation of anti-Catholic ears...
Does your Bible contain 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6? How about 1 Corinthians 11:2? A phobia of oral tradition is not only irrational, but it's unbiblical, as well.
and essential for salvation faith, and life. A soul may read such a text as Peter's sermon in Acts 10 and become born again just as the hearers of it there did,
A soul may also be saved by following whatever lights God allows in his existence (i.e. those who never hear the Gospel, but who follow the law written on their hearts by God, as best they can); that's hardly the point. Also, the Protestant idea of "born again" is at variance with Jesus' Own words (and the rest of Scripture), unless you're talking about regenerative Baptism, which saves us (cf. 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, etc.). you must be referring to infallible answers as otherwise we both only have fallible souls.
Er... sorry, but could you re-word that, again?
And indeed, even what RC bishops understand Rome as meaning see variant interpretations (even popes can disagree with a Burke as to who is a member that can receive the Eucharist).
You don't seem to understand what infallibility (in this context) means, and the conditions in which it applies. The Pope, for example, is protected from error when he promulgates a formal dogma (solemn teaching, declared to be contained in Divine Revelation) of the Church, speaks specifically as Supreme Pontiff, and (most importantly) binds all the faithful to obey and assent to that teaching, on pain of heresy/sin. Popes can err (sometimes spectacularly, sometimes over serious matters, and sometimes over things which could jeopardize the salvation of souls by bad example--for which the Pope will have to give a heavy account, when facing the judgment seat of God). All other things being equal, we Catholics are obligated to give every possible consideration and weight to even the non-solemn teachings of the Pope; but we are not bound to them under pain of sin. So... no, the Pope's comments about global warming, political systems, and other things outside of the purview of explicit doctrine are certainly not safeguarded by the charism of infallibility, nor are Catholics obliged to agree with such pronouncements (which are not intrinsic to the faith).
Meanwhile, just which teachings are infallible are subject to interpretations, as can their meaning, and to suppose you can get an infallible answer to questions concerning such is absurd.
Nonsense. As a non-faith-related example: "2 + 2 = 4" is an infallible statement, and it doesn't require supernatural grace to grasp it. "My father is older than I am" is an infallible statement, as well (and similarly accessible to the ordinary human mind). Just so: there are clear conditions under which a papal statement (and/or other magisterial statement) is infallible: (1) it must concern salvific matters (i.e. faith and/or morals); (2) it must be promulgated officially as doctrine, in which it must be made clear that the statement is obligatory (i.e. to be believed by all the faithful, on pain of heresy/sin). Are there a *few* instances where a particular statement was worded so ambiguously that it was difficult to tell? Certainly... but most such statements are quite clear (e.g. "If anyone does not believe [x], let him be anathema", etc.). I'm not sure why you'd think an infallible definition to be so impossible to produce. For example: do YOU (personally) have any intellectual problem understanding WHAT the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Vary is? It's not rocket science...
That should be enough, for the moment, though I missed a few points; you've waited long enough for this reply (which I sent as soon as my schedule allowed). Feel free to ask again about anything I missed which you'd still like addressed.
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.