Posted on 12/10/2009 2:08:47 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
>The usual Protestant error is that we are saved by faith alone. That is counterscriptural nonsense:<
No, that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone is most precisely true, but not by a faith that is alone, and thus the Reformationists taught. Faith without works is in-deed not saving faith, but a faith that overall follows Jesus is, (Jn. 10:27) with practicing righteousness being the defining characteristic of a true Christian. (1 Jn., all) However, in our present day, what is often seen in evangelical Protestantism,, is a lowering of the standard of what constitutes saving faith, but which is even more evident in Catholicism and mainline Protestantism if the truth be told.
When the N.T. deals purely with what exactly does justify a person, it is clearly taught that a man is “not justified by the works of the law...” (Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16) and broadly that it is “Not by works of righteousness which we have done...” (Titus 3:5; 2 Tim. 1:19) but that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” (Rom 4:5,6) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1)
What the N.T. shows is that the moment a person truly believes, he/she is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11), havng been forgiven all trespasses (Col. 2:13) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:7-9; cf. 10:43-47), and declared righteous in God’s sight. (Gn. 15:6; Rm. 4:9) And are also “translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” and baptized into one general body of Christ. (1 Cor. 12:13) These things are purely of grace, and cannot be done by man, even with Divine help.
Moreover, John constantly declares the he that believes on Christ has eternal life, and that believers can (and should) know this. (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:13).
Abraham is the example Paul used in his soteriology in Rm. 4, as “he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” (Gn. 15:6) Abraham had no power to achieve what God had promised, that of many decedents (and which is this being analogous to our gaining justification), they being being beyond child bearing age, but in humbly acknowledging this, he was “fully persuaded that, what He [God] had promised, He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (Rom 4:22)
Yet texts such as Heb. 5:9 teach that Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him”, and James (2:21) seemingly contradicts both Genesis and Paul in stating that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Issac in Gn. 22, which came after the imputation of righteousness in Gn. 15:6.
However, there is no real contradiction, as while the Bible upholds that salvation is by faith, it also clearly reveals that such saving faith is of a certain general quality, this being one which will effectually confesses Jesus is Lord: (Mt. 10:32)
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Rm. 10:9-11)
Contextually, for this audience to confess Jesus as Lord was to deny Caesar as one who was to be worshiped, thereby greatly reducing their life expectancy, and thus the believing of Rm. 10:9 conveys more depth than in the post-Christian west, and may be more akin to a Muslim confessing Christ in Pakistan.
As regards confessing, while true faith speaks, for “as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken”, (2 Cor. 4:13), yet the confession in v. 10 cannot be restricted to those who can speak, but in essence shows that faith in the heart will be expressed, and baptism is commanded as the initial outward deceleration of ones faith in Christ, that indeed He died and rose again, which is what baptism pictures in the life of the believer. (Rm. 6)
However, this cannot restrict justification to only taking place at the time of baptism, as the aforereferenced case of Cornelius attests, who received the gift of the Holy Spirit like as the apostles, before baptism, or even the laying on of hands.
On the other hand, while much effort is spent by those who contend against baptismal regeneration, as it is seen as adding works to justification, yet baptism is no more a work that merits salvation than thinking is in forming silent prayer (pray is labor in Col. 4:12), or moving one’s lips in confessing Christ out loud, and which baptism does in body language. Thus Peter in Acts 2:38 may be said to have called the 3,000+ souls to publicly say a “sinner’s prayer”. The key distinction is that while salvific faith is of a confessional quality, in words and deeds, it is not by the merit of any works that one is justified, but by the God-given faith that is behind works, the exercise of which repentant faith God enables, (Acts 11:18) and has ways of making you willing to.
While Calvinists go further in seeking to take any hint of works out of justification, by teaching that a soul is born again before he/she responds, i find less warrant for holding that the grace that enables repentance is the new birth itself, if f Acts 2:29; Eph. 1:13 etc. is a chronological sequence.
James for his part, is not teaching in cp. 2 systematic soteriology, but his particular polemic is that of proving that saving faith must have works. His seeming denial of Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4:3 must be seen in that light, as while the Scriptures clearly state that salvation is “not by works”, by the merit of them, but by faith, it may be said that we are justified by works which manifest faith, as these justify that we have faith.
Yet I do not think that God has to wait until He sees a soul do a work of faith before He justify him/her, as He can see true faith in a person (so that even a person on a death bed could be saved, as in RC “baptism by desire), but baptism is both a catalyst which can bring forth faith, as well as a commanded expression of it.
On the other hand, Rome states that believers are “accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God,...to have truly merited eternal life.” (Trent, 1547, The Sixth Session Decree on justification, chapter XVI)
While this should have a practical effects in making Catholics as earnest as Watchtower disciples, in making sure their works are up to snuff, yet as stated before, what is effectually conveyed is that quite nominal profession is will do, in lieu of the power of Rome with God.
But doctrinally, the error pf Rome is the idea that what justifies one is an actual righteousness, that of a constitutional change of heart realized in regeneration, and which usually takes place in infant baptism (sprinkling, which some P’s erroneously do also) through proxy faith, and also that works of faith merit eternal life.
This is in contrast to the explicit teaching that righteousness is imputed (logizomai), reckoned, or credited by faith, resulting in regeneration, as the sinner abased themselves as being unrighteous, and exalted God as so righteous that the sinner cannot merit eternal life, but looked to Him for mercy, that being Christ crucified and risen to glory. And contrary to how Roman apologists often construe this position, this holds that such faith results in works wrought by faith, in response to so great salvation, though the works themselves do not merit of it, even though done by faith.
I do not that much discussion has taken place btwn Protestant and RC theologians over what Trent precisely meant, and I am not a man of letters, yet while I contend against traditions of men such as praying to saints, I would find some real joy if Rome forsook teaching that one becomes a born again Christan through infant baptism, and thus stop treating them as Christians, but press upon them the necessity of the new birth, and that they are not going to gain eternal life by resting on their merits or that of their church, and instead convict them of the need for their day of salvation, by calling upon the Lord Jesus for salvation, through faith in His sinless shed blood, out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, which souls God promises to save. (Ps. 34:18) (Rm. 3:25; 1 Pt. 2:14; 3:18) This alone would greatly enliven her church, but would be contrary to the institutionalized bureaucracy of dispensary of grace, which overall promotes perfunctory professions, and confidence in the church for salvation.
One can stress the need for fruit if you claim to be in the vine, but the normal predisposition of man is to avoid the humiliation of a man who is destitute of any merit of salvation, and casting away confidence is himself or church, essentially surrender his sovereignty, and become utterly dependent, in heart not just head, on the mercy of God in Christ. Churches who simply profess doctrine but do not preach as to impress upon its hearers the ramifications of it, afflicting the comfortable, and comforting the afflicted, become institutionalized fossils. But Rome;s error is not simply if lack of conveyance, but its very bureaucratic doctrine.
*Infants cannot fufil the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:28; Acts 8:37) nor is circumcision fully analogous to baptism due to the physical versus spiritual basis, nor, considering its importance, is it reasonable that the Holy Spirit would not to provide at least one example of an infant being baptized (”thy house” hardly do so) if this was to be done, much less be the norm, while damned souls are done so based upon their own works, not Adam’s. (Rev. 20:12-15) As regards proxy faith, no example of salvation by this exists, unless we think the mention of baptizing for the dead infers sanction, and disability of the palsied man (Mt. 9:1-17) was physical, not cognitive, which allowed Jesus to address him. God can and does answers believers prayers of faith (thank God, but help my unbelief), including drawing souls to himself, but as argued before, heart response by them is necessary.
With much of what you say I agree, at least insofar as it does not contradict the Catohlic teaching on justification. It is true that works of the law, works done out of obligation, for social gain, and similar do not save. Works done out of love of God and fellow man save in some combination with faith. It is not unorthodox to say that works follow faith, but at the same time it is not unorthodox to say that faith follows works. The truth is that faith and works cooperate with grace and result, hopefully, in salvation.
What of the prooftexts that say that “whosoever believes in Christ will be saved”? In absence of the direct and multiparagraph teaching on justification by works such as Matthew 25 (or shorter version in Romans 2), and in absence of James 2, where again the doctrine of sola fide is expressly rejected, — in a vaccuum that is, these short prooftexts that praise faith and do not mention works would perhaps allow us to think along the Protestant lines and still remian faithful to the Scripture. As it stands, however, they are prooftexts that point to the importance of faith as we progress toward salvation, but not of faith being alone the criterion or ground for justification. Note, too, that obedience to the commandments of Christ and therefore to the rules of His Church are a component of faith. Therefore one whose faith is properly formed will work the works that Christ wants him to work, and he who relies on faith alone but would not do these works does not have a well-formed faith.
Further, none of that is to supplant the fact that the strength to resist sin and the grace that saves us is transmitted through the sacraments of the Church, primarily baptism, penance, and the Eucharist. For that, again, we have a categorical scrupture that says so, and I cited it in my previous post or posts.
This is my challenge to our non-Catholic brethren: How many times do you have to repent of the same sin before you recognize your theology does not work?
Those who rely on faith alone but do not have works do not have saving faith, but it is by faith that righteousness is imputed, not works.
As for Mt. 25, one self-evident principal of sound exegesis is that ambiguous texts are interpreted in the light of the clearest teaching, and in this case it is Paul who is laying down systematic soteriology, and most precisely deals with the exact issue of the basis of justification, regarding faith versus works. Mt 25 is not primarily teaching soteriology, but does reveal those whose works manifest they possess saving faith, while text such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, (Mat 5:3) deals with those who have the kind of heart that call upon Christ effectually for salvation.
If you simply form your soteriology out the the gospels, then you will have to reconcile having to require one soul to sell all he has, while another gives only half to the poor, while another shows compassion to the afflicted, while another just humbly cries for mercy, and another just believes and tells others about Jesus, and another is told the word of Gos is to believe. All these are reconciled (primarily) in Paul’s specific teaching, which Peter called scripture, and which reveals that it is faith out of a humble and contrite heart that appropriates justification, and thus is manifested by works of faith, done is response to salvation, not in order to acquire it.
>The truth is that faith and works cooperate with grace and result, hopefully, in salvation.<
Not quite. You first cooperate with grace when you repent and believe, and thus have eternal life, and if so, it will be shown by overall following Christ in obedience.
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” (Rom 5:1)
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)
Because a believer has eternal life, having passed from death unto life by believing, (Jn. 5:24), then he can and will live it out with the right motive. However, the “these things” of 5:13 refer to what John wrote in this letter, delineating “things which accompany salvation”. (Heb. 6:9).
>the strength to resist sin and the grace that saves us is transmitted through the sacraments of the Church, primarily baptism, penance, and the Eucharist. ... scrupture says so<
I dealt with baptism and the Eucharist already, the latter in post 66, if briefly. Your beliefs are the results of very poor exegesis. If i must expand, see below.
That is almost cruel considering the evidence. If Rome’s claims for such were subject to FDA scrutiny they would be fined for false advertising, as you yourself must know that the vast majority of Catholic souls who were baptized, and partake of the Eucharist, show little if any of the promised effect. Areas where baptized Catholics abound are actually the most liberal, but when such become born again we overall see very different results. Around here, baptized Catholic school kids are among the most indifferent to the gospel.
As for your question, while i do repent, including of things i never though were sin when i was a typical Catholic, the difference is a real believer repents, while Rome manifests the greatest degree of amoral adherents than Bible preaching evangelicals, while we do come short. We can however, trade names of notable holy people, but i dare say evangelicals have far more manifestly holy and fruitful “saints” than Rome has in relations to there respective sizes, in the last 400 years. I know not of a Catholic like Matthew Henry, with his exhaustive practical commentary on the Bible, or 8,000 hymn writer Fanny Crosby, and multitudes more like them, from Wesley to Spurgeon and more. If only the Reformation and then the Great Awakenings had happened earlier. The USA itself is much indebted to them.
As regards the Eucharist being the actually flesh and blood of Jesus:
1.The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood, the penalty being to be cut off from God’s people, “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Lv. 17:0). And that the apostles, far from being learned theologians, who might have understood what Rome proposes, were unlearned Jews, who (especially Peter) would voice concerns when troubled about things, even as they did at the last supper, (it is I?). A study of the gospels shows the disciples, Peter in particular, were not men who would just submit to eating human flesh and drinking blood without some protest and explanation, as is seen in Acts 10. Peter did not even want Jesus to wash his feet, but know he just drinks His blood? It is revealed that Peter was still following Kosher Law as far after the Lord’s supper as Acts 10 (9-16), in which he protested “Not so, Lord” (an oxymoron). How much more he, or one of the other apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord’s corporeal flesh and drinking His blood! Peter did not even (initially) want the Lord to wash his feet (Jn. 13:6), never mind eat His flesh! Peter instead exhorts believers to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet 2:2).
2.The Jews were well acquainted with the use of symbolic language, with the O.T. often speaking of eating in a figurative manner. When the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that EATETH UP the inhabitants thereof;” or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are BREAD for us” Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the land or the Israelites would become cannibals. And when Jeremiah proclaims, Your WORDS were found. and I ATE them. and your WORD was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (15:16), or Ezekiel and Joghn are told, “EAT this SCROLL, and go, speak to the house of Israel” ( 3:1), “Take the SCROLL ... Take it and EAT it” (Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9), it is not speaking of literal eating. In Jn. 6, it is likewise speaking of receiving the words of Christ in order to live (Mt. 4:4).
As relates to equating men with blood, the most analogous example is found in 2Sam. 23:15-17, wherein we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.” Here, David equates the thing gotten at the peril of the men’s life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. So it is in the Lord’s supper accounts. The Lord is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life giving substances could be broken and poured out, respectively, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless blood “pour out “ as the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10).
3. If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have “life in you”, which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved. Instead, they preached that we are believe on the Lord Jesus, which is what Jn. 6: 63 confirms is the meaning of v. 53. The apostles taught how one becomes born again, and so have “life in you” (Eph. 2:1, 5), is by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47). For Jesus said, “It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). This is how Jesus “lived by” the Father” (John 6:57), not by physically consuming Him, but by doing His will in believing and obeying Him, which was Jesus’ “meat and drink” (Jn. 4:34).
The context of John 6 is that of men seeking physical food. Jesus had just fed them and they thought they had a good thing going, and wanted a (modern) Jesus who place the priority on constant physical satisfaction. Jesus instead tells them “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (John 6:27). Because they are “carnally minded,” who “mind the things of the flesh” (Rm. 8:5), and looking for the physical, then contrary to the women at the well in Jn. 4, when Jesus leads them to the higher spiritual using metaphorical language (living water: 4:10, 14 = Jesus, as living bread” in 6:51), their focus on a literal physical meaning restrains them perceiving it’s spiritual counterpart, and thus rather than telling others about the Messiah (4:28, 29), they will walk away with darkened minds (v. 66).
But as He did in Jn. 4, Jesus reveals the spiritual meaning of His metaphor, that as “I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (v. 6:57), which is by every word of God (Mt. 4:4), “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63). Peter rightly discern this, as he states, “thou hast the words of eternal life” which is entirely consistent with the testimony of Scripture elsewhere.
Jesus use of metaphors is consistent with the gospel of John in general in which there is constant contrast between that which is below vs. that which is above, between the temporal and the eternal, between the physical and the spiritual. In Jn. 6 Jesus points them to “food” that will give them eternal life, which is every place in John and elsewhere is by believing, not believing in a doctrine of transubstantiation, but in Christ, the Son of the living God, for which John gives many physical types.
In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.
4. If what Roman Catholicism asserts is what happened at the Lord’s Supper, that by means of transubstantiation the substance of bread and wine is actually changed, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord’s body and blood though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did the water actually became wine, and it tasted like it; the sick were made well, and knew it. And if i am not mistaken, according to Roman Catholic doctrine the miracle of transubstantiation is not the same thing as in the incarnation of Christ.
5. “Not discerning the Lord’s body” in 1 Cor. 11 is not speaking about a failure to recognize that the elements of the Supper were actually the body and blood of Christ, but about a failure to effectually recognize others members of the body of Christ, The context is that some souls were commemorating the utterly selfless sacrifice of the Lord in an entirely selfish way, that of pigging out at the love feast of charity (Jude 1:12) while others members of the body of Christ were starving. This is what is meant by not discerning (or judging) the Lord’s body. And which body Paul elsewhere defines as the church (Eph_1:23,16; 4:4,12,16;_5:23,30; Col_1:18,22; 2:11,17,19; 3:15).
6. Unlike other major doctrines - and the RC doctrine of transubstantiation is a most major one - very little mention of the Lord’s supper is made, and no theology on the doctrine of transubstantiation and it’s salvific necessity. In contrast, the preaching of the gospel is presented as the means to gain eternal life, and effectually believing on the Lord Jesus Christ gives spiritual life (Acts 10”43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:13; 2:1), and the theology behind it abundantly addressed. To God be the glory.
In summation, “the Lord’s body” referred to in the gospel accounts and the term “eating and drink in Jn. 6 is consistent with Biblical Jewish as well as Greek allegorical usage, and “this is my body” is no more literal than the water David held in his hand was “the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? And the Lord’s body in 1 Cor. 11 contextually represented the church. Those who are deceived into believing the carnal interpretation of Rome (which the lost souls in Jn. 6:66 did) may be said to have “eaten the fruit of lies” (Hos. 6:13), and which is another example of the abundant use of metaphors regarding eating.
Yes, I do form my soteriology from the words of Christ. It is true that depending on one's economic circumstance one hase to give all he has, or all that he has in excess, and yet another has to simply cry out for mercy. Millions of Catholics live that gospel out every day.
St. Paul never taught anything different.
I dealt with baptism and the Eucharist already, the latter in post 66
Your #66 makes no sense,-- would you rephrase it to specifically deal with the quotes I cites as to the sacrament of Baptism and the Eucharist? Note that the doubts that Peter might have at one point have no bearing on the issue.
As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly (Proverbs 26:16)
quoted in 2 Peter 2:22
12 ...these men, as irrational beasts, naturally tending to the snare and to destruction, blaspheming those things which they know not, shall perish in their corruption[...]
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. 22 For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.
(2 Peter 2)
The revelation of Scripture is manifestly progressive, and synoptic gospels in particular do not supply systematic soteriology, as does Rm. 1-11. I have explained at length the correlation btwn faith and works, that both are necessary, but that faith appropriates forgiveness, imputed righteousness, and positional sanctification, out of which which works flow, but it is not the merit of them that justifies.
>Millions of Catholics live that gospel out every day.<
What millions of Catholics evidentially live out is their believe that they became Christians as infants, and that their good works and Rome’s power will gain them eternal life, and never having abased themselves as lost hell-bound sinners, destitute of any merit to save them, and thus cast all their faith and confidence in the Lord Jesus and His finished work.
>Your #66 makes no sense<
Did you look above your last reply? How often must loyalty to Rome compel its apologists to deny the obvious. And if you do not think my comments on 6:53 make any sense, and that the evidence that Peter did not see Jesus words as literally meaning he was consuming Jesus actually flesh and blood, have no bearing on the issue, then you should not be engaging in private interpretation, and i should not wast much time further refuting you.
Ah, perfect. I love it when facing a clear scripture quoting Jesus directly, a Protestant would run to hide behind "systematic theology". What is your systematic theology worth if it does not accord with the teaching of Christ? What did St. Paul teach in Romans that Christ did not teach? Where did your sola scriptura superstition go?
What millions of Catholics evidentially live out
If you want to know what we live out, ask, and I will tell you. No, good works and Rome's power is not whot gives eternal life. Read the gospel and you will find out; in fact, I already pointed that out for you.
my comments on 6:53
You mean this:
If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have “life in you”, which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again
That is poor grasp of eucharistic theology. The Eucharist is pointless to the unconverted; the apostles preached the necessity of conversion, penance and baptism as prerequisite to receiving Christ in the Eucharist.
You know, I really do understand how and why you can think this way. However, I do think there is something fundamental that you are overlooking. That is, all the rapturous joy one feels by "knowing the Lord" through filling ones head with hours of scriptural argumentation is ultimately nothing but vanity if God doesn't agree.
After all, wasn't that the real sin of the Jewish leadership of Christ's time? They were so convinced they knew God's will from pouring over the law that they scorned God when he showed up to correct them.
The question you have to ask yourself is "if God showed up to correct you, would you recognize it?" What if you are actually mistaken in thinking "The word of God" is the same thing as the Bible, and every time that Word of God is mentioned it means the Bible?
It's not a preposterous question. At Christ's dedication in the opening of Luke's gospel we see the Holy Spirit claim through Simeon that it was God's word that informed him he would not see death before beholding the Christ. So unless someone can find a personal prophesy to Simeon in the OT, the Holy Spirit is telling us "God's Word" is something more than the Bible alone.
So I submit to you "knowing God" is not the number of Bible verses you can cleverly concatenate to form a "doctrine," but the relationship with Christ that sets one free from the body of this death as Paul called it in Romans 7. That is, the ability to stand firm against that which you would not do, but do anyway.
At this point it is important not to confuse this with "turning your life around" by breaking free of things that obviously damage like addictions. Pagans do these things everyday. While such things are difficult, people overcome them all the time with nothing more than steely resolve.
What I'm referring to is sin that others don't even recognize; those dark parts of who you are that you are utterly powerless against.
I've spent more than enough time being told to "trust Jesus" (in fact, more than twenty years) only to find that trust was no more important than the stone is to making stone soup. I could argue from the Bible for days on how "saved" I was knowing full well there was absolutely no real internal difference between me and the next guy beside the claims I made predicated on the Bible.
Jesus came to give life, not confidence.
So while I can indeed vouch for the zeal of many "saved" Christians, it is often nothing more than another form of the vanity spoken of in Ecclesiastes.
So at some point, in pouring out one's heart before the Lord, and repenting yet again for that same thing, the "saved" need to recognize they are NOT being helped, and the reason is because they are NOT doing what they were told. And like it or not, doing what you're told is NOT relying on a "work" just because someone waving a Bible says so.
On that day many will say "Lord, Lord, did we not...etc." Doesn't that verse sound like they were geniunely shocked to hear "I never knew you?"
So what is it I say you need to "do?" Learn to tell, no matter how well reasoned your arguments, no matter how deep you conviction, no matter how much time you spend in Church or pouring over the Bible...learn to tell when God is ignoring you.
Your response is both insolent and inaccurate, and also shows a superficial reading of my posts, and manifests another example of the Scripturally deficient state of Roman apologetics, and a superficiality and deception which is consistent with being led and promoted by men over God, more of which should not be encouraged here.
To the contrary, my apologetics training is strictly Protestant. You, however, are unused to being beaten with your own cudgel. Neither are you prepared to carry on any serious debate with someone who does not share your extensive presuppositions.
Do you have any response to my Luke 2:29 question or are you content to answer with Pharisaical outrage?
Pure bombast and insolence. Far from being beaten with anything, you have refuted absolutely nothing that i posted, but have majored in sarcasm and psychology.
However, i will provide a chance to be reason-able, in discussing this with me, who is not bound by traditions of men.
In invoking Luke 2:29, i presume you mean 2:26. This deals with private revelation, and if you had seen post #20 you would have known that i do not see this as militating against Sola Scriptura:
“Sola Scriptura does not hold that miracles, history, and reason play no part is discerning what Scripture means, nor that God cannot “speak” to souls today (esp. during the offering:), but that all such is subject to the Bible in determining its veracity.”
There are far more texts than Lk. 2:26 which reveal that the Word of God is not restricted to Scripture, but as Scripture is the only objective authority that is assuredly declared to be wholly inspired, (2Tim. 3:16) than that is what any revelation must be tested by.
While God spoke to men like Abraham before any scripture was written, and confirmed it by supernatural attestation, once revelation was established as wholly inspired and written, then it became the authority for obedience, and for testing revelation.
Thus it is abundantly substantiated:
Ex. 17:14: 24:7; 34:1; 34:27; Dt. 10:2; 17:18,19; 27:8; 29:21; 30:10; 31:11,19,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,34,35; 23:6; 24:26; 1Ki. 2:3; 12:22; 2Ki. 14:6; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9;2Ch. 34:14,15,21; 35:12; Ezr 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 30:2; 36:2,28; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 2:5; 4:4,6,7,10; 11:10; 21:13,42; 22:29; 26:24,31,54,56; Mk. 1:2; 9:12,13; 14:21,47; 12:24; 14:49; Lk. 2:3; 3:4; 10:26; 19:46; 20:17; 22:37; 24:27,32,45,46; Joh 5:39; 6:45; 12:14l 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 15:15; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 4:13; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:7; 1Pet. 1:16; 2Pet. 3:16 Mk. 7:3; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 10:35;
It is not extraBiblical traditions that Peter refers to as providing “exceeding great and precious promises that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,” or being the “more sure word of prophecy” (2Pt. 2:19), but the Scriptures. (v. 20)
That there was a body of literature recognized as Scripture in the time of Christ is internally evident, and that it was this, and not Jewish traditions, which the apostles directed the disciples to look to:
Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
In addition to private revelation, or pubic declaration as in 1Cor. 14, and which was to be judged, one may be said to “preach the word” in declaring Scripturally sound teaching, as is seen esp. in Acts, and disobedience to which is disobeying the Scriptures upon which it is based.
Though when the apostles preached the Word of God, (1Thes. 2:13) they may have contained words which were not later written in Scripture, yet they would be consistent with it, as Act 17:11 infers:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
They and others also wrote or spoke words which would become part of the body of Scripture, yet, in addition to the Scriptural integrity of such, this was before the canon of Scripture was closed. To hold any further revelation as equal in authority to Scripture is to essentially add to the canon.
While not all information that could be given is contained in Scripture (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4) only the objective class of revelation called Scripture is established as wholly inspired, and thus is superior in authority.
The uncodified class of revelation called church tradition being held as equal to Scripture is esp. problematic, due to the Biblically unwarranted nature of what has been dogmatically affirmed from it, and the presumption of infallibility which presumes it may establish it as such. Unlike the Jews, Rome’s authority is based upon her own declarations of authority, not Biblical faith, upon which (and by extension, its Object) the body of Christ is founded and overcomes.
oh do hang on while i digest your reply!
Doubtless, you could have saved yourself much effort by responding with a simple "nuh uh," but of course that would not have provided you with sufficient rhetorical "chaff" to camouflage your double-mindedness.
I'm particularly amused by how you even presume error on my part to better mesh with your wishful interpretations of scripture.
No, I cited Luke 2:29, because that is the scripture I intended. It is the specific verse that tells us Simeon, while under the influence of the Holy Spirit, declared his private revelation to be God's Word, and thus scripturally invalidates the protestant dogma that the Bible "is" the Word of God as opposed to "contains" the Word of God.
YOU may " not see this as militating against Sola Scriptura," but trust me, your theological "leaders" certainly do. You simply haven't yet recognized the second and third order implications to Protestant theology and interpretation of disconnecting the phrase "Word of God" from the canon of scripture!
For example, that favorite Protestant pastime of accusing Catholics of "disobeying, or contradicting, the Word of God" is meaningless without the prior assumption that nothing that isn't contained in the Bible can be the authoritative Word of God. Thus, reverence for Mary isn't just a disagreement over "dunk or sprinkle," but a trumped up opportunity to condemn the ungodly!
Also, I find particularly humorous your assertion:
...Scripture is the only objective authority that is assuredly declared to be wholly inspired, (2Tim. 3:16) than that is what any revelation must be tested by.One would think you never read Peter's admonition in 2 Peter 3:16 regarding those who "wrest" scripture to their own destruction! Your assertion is exactly the same used by the Moslems when they claim "men have no authority to make laws, but only Allah" though you both seem to be practicing the same studied ignorance that refuses to recognize "interpreting" God's revelation IS speaking for God!
It is seldom recognized that those who haughtily say "so-and-so doesn't speak for God!" are claiming exactly the same authority for themselves, albeit negatively rather than positively, that they would deny to the one they denounce.
That would be fine if they actually had an authoritative source for such denunciations, but as we see in the case of Marian devotion, these denunciations are strictly predicated of "interpretation" of Scripture, rather than "command" of Scripture.
No, instead we see "rules" grown out of men's interpretation of scripture such as
...once revelation was established as wholly inspired and written, then it became the authority for obedience, and for testing revelation.so they can accuse the innocent of "harvesting on the Sabbath."
Truly, there is not one verse in your grocery list of citations that says what you claim above, apart from a Pharisaical interpretation motivated to find fault.
How can one take serious the Biblical scholarship of one who claims:
...it was this, and not Jewish traditions, which the apostles directed the disciples to look to...when it is clear the ONLY reason for most of the rules given to the gentiles in Acts 15 is in deference to the sensibilities formed by Jewish tradition. While this does not mean there is a direct parallel between Jewish, and Catholic tradition, it certainly doesn't make early Christians the iconoclasts Reformation thinkers wish to paint them.
Indeed, it seems the number of man-made interpretations with no other reason for being aside from the preservation of the Sola Scriptura dogma never ends! Empty conjecture about what "would become part of the body of Scripture" and postulates designed to create a conflict where there is none between Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition seem to be totally immune to Paul's 1Thes 5:21 injunction to test ALL things, not just the ones you dislike.
Is there no limit to the nonsensical prattling that can be embraced so long as it's goal is the rejection of the CHURCH Jesus left us, as opposed to the BOOK codified hundreds of years after Pentecost?
I'm sure you intended your closing sentence:
Unlike the Jews, Rome's authority is based upon her own declarations of authority, not Biblical faith, upon which (and by extension, its Object) the body of Christ is founded and overcomes.to be your coup de gras!
Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked the fact, as is stated in 1 Tim 3:15, the "pillar and foundation of the truth" is the CHURCH, not "biblical faith," thus making your crescendo decidedly hollow.
>Luke 2:29,...thus scripturally invalidates the protestant dogma that the Bible "is" the Word of God as opposed to "contains" the Word of God. You may " not see this as militating against Sola Scriptura," but trust me, your theological "leaders" certainly do.<
Actually, as the Bible reveals what this promise was, this is not a solid reference for proving that the Word of God includes revelation today that is outside the Bible. Texts such as Jn. 21:25 or Act 4:31 establish that better, though few texts exclude the possibility that Scripture, or what would be included in it, is what the Word of God refers to, and many texts explicitly make that clear. However, neither i, nor notable defenders of SS i am somewhat acquainted with, hold that no words of Christ, for instance, exist outside Scripture, nor that other sources may not provide truth.
MacArthur states, "It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture." "Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."
White states that "John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John." Nor is it [SS] "a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth", as long as it "does not add revelation or rule over Scripture." "The issue is not, and never has been, the validity of "tradition" as a subordinate authority."
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture in this way: "The whole counsel of God, 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" (1:6).
Moreover, I know of no notable commentators, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Torrey, Wesley, etc., who hold that preaching the word cannot denote preaching the truth of the Bible, versus only speaking Scripture. And few today hold that God cannot "speak" to them. The key aspect of SS is that all is subject to Scripture, as the authority by which the veracity is judged.
>You simply haven't yet recognized the second and third order implications to Protestant theology and interpretation of disconnecting the phrase "Word of God" from the canon of scripture!<
It is not disconnected. While the Scriptures themselves establish that the phrase can sometimes refer to revelation not explicitly penned in Scripture, it is also evidenced that all such must conflate with it. And the canon being closed (the fullness of that body of revelation which is affirmed to be wholly inspired), nothing can be added to the Bible. If God reveals to you when the economy will crash, or how the exodus more preciously happened, then it must be tested by Scripture.
>For example, that favorite Protestant pastime of accusing Catholics of "disobeying, or contradicting, the Word of God" is meaningless without the prior assumption that nothing that isn't contained in the Bible can be the authoritative Word of God.<
Not so, nothing is equal in authority to it, and while "reverence for Mary" is Scriptural, it is not when it is "above that which is written", (1Cor. 4:6), and what is justly condemned is praying to anyone is Heaven other than God, as it lacks Scriptural warrant, and is contrary to the commands on who to pray to, and the revelation of who is our exalted and worthy intercessor. To teach contrary to Scripture is not preaching the word.
>Also, I find particularly humorous your assertion:
"[as]...Scripture is the only objective authority that is assuredly declared to be wholly inspired, (2Tim. 3:16) than that is what any revelation must be tested by."
One would think you never read Peter's admonition in 2 Peter 3:16 regarding those who "wrest" scripture to their own destruction! Your assertion...refuses to recognize "interpreting" God's revelation IS speaking for God!<
Indeed it is. And SS does not deny the authority of the teaching office. Nor again, the validity of "tradition" as a subordinate authority.
However, your error is in negating the commendation of the noble Bereans due to abuse of the Bible and failing to practice what SS requires, which is that is interpreting scripture by Scripture which exposes the wresting of texts. Rome itself can be shown to wrest Scriptures, even in invoking 2Pet. 1:19 for its purposes.
>It is seldom recognized that those who haughtily say "so-and-so doesn't speak for God!" are claiming exactly the same authority for themselves, albeit negatively rather than positively, that they would deny to the one they denounce.<
So does Rome, the difference is that one recognizes what he teaches only has authority insofar as it can be shown to be consistent with and substantiated by Scripture, which text Paul's preaching could pass, while the other relies upon a presumed authority to infallibility, based upon its own declaration to be so.
>That would be fine if they actually had an authoritative source for such denunciations, but as we see in the case of Marian devotion, these denunciations are strictly predicated of "interpretation" of Scripture, rather than "command" of Scripture.<
Indeed they are, as your position is. But do you really believe that only what is expressly explicitly commanded or not commanded in Scripture is authoritative? If so, then please find the command to pray to Mary.
While interpreting Scripture is not contrary to SS, but makes such subject to validation by Scripture, your interpretation rests upon unwarranted traditions of men being of equal authority with Scripture. Or do you presume that such exhortations as "wait thou only upon God", (Ps. 62:5), and (after establishing Jesus as the uniquely qualified intercessor), "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb. 4:16) who "ever liveth to make intercession for them." "Looking unto Jesus..." (Heb. 7:25; 12:2), and the utter absence of any command or example of anyone praying to anyone else in heaven but the Lord, yet allows sanction for praying to a Queen of heaven, which was only known among a pagans?
>No, instead we see "rules" grown out of men's interpretation of scripture...<
The issue is not whether interpretations can be valid, but the warranted nature of them, and the preeminence of Scripture as the authority by which interpretations and revelations are proved by is in fact, abundantly testified to by Scripture.
>such as
"...once revelation was established as wholly inspired and written, then it became the authority for obedience, and for testing revelation."
so they can accuse the innocent of "harvesting on the Sabbath." Truly, there is not one verse in your grocery list of citations that says what you claim above, apart from a Pharisaical interpretation motivated to find fault...<
Quite the contrary, as the authority of Scripture by which revelation is tested and teaching is substantiated is abundantly manifest, while reproof of those who presume authority to make unwarranted traditions of men is also evidenced. And that is what is truly Pharisaical.
While miracles were a primary means of attesting to the Divine authority of the apostles and early church when preaching the gospel to the Scripturally illiterate Gentiles (Rm. 15:18,19; Acts 14:1-13), though miracles were not restricted to such, when proving doctrine or preaching the gospel to those to whom the "oracles of God" were committed (Rm. 3:2), the Lord and His apostles used Scripture, with Jesus referencing or alluding the O.T. over 100 times, and Paul and others likewise, as in,
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
>How can one take serious the Biblical scholarship of one who claims:
"...it was this, and not Jewish traditions, which the apostles directed the disciples to look to..."
when it is clear the ONLY reason for most of the rules given to the gentiles in Acts 15 is in deference to the sensibilities formed by Jewish tradition.<
By "look to" i am referring to the primacy of Scripture, as in Rm. 15:4, versus Biblically unwarranted traditions, ala Rome and the Jews in Mk. 7:9-13. In addition, this primacy does not negate the authority or use of tradition simply because it is tradition, but the worthiness of it is proven by that which is affirmed to be wholly inspired.
There is nothing anti-SS in mandating rules of church discipline, as long as this is not made of equal authority with Scripture, and is justified by it. And if i recall correctly Rome recognizes Acts 15 as being a matter of church discipline.
Finally, while not offending the Jews was a primary cause for these proscriptions, it was not extraBiblical traditions which were the basis for them, but the Law itself, (Exo. 34:15-16; Num. 25:2; Lv. 17:3,11; 18) though the dietary aspects were abrogated under the New Covenant.
>Indeed, it seems the number of man-made interpretations with no other reason for being aside from the preservation of the Sola Scriptura dogma never ends!<
Actually, invalid interpretations are what abound when one declares themselves infallible, and allows a bottomless pit of uncodified church tradition to be equal with Scripture (or at least potentially according to some) while the criteria for valid interpretations under SS require interpretations to be demonstrably warranted, not decreed while though lacking such. And I could and would submit to Rome if her claims and doctrines at issue were sound.
>Empty conjecture about what "would become part of the body of Scripture" and postulates designed to create a conflict where there is none between Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition seem to be totally immune to Paul's 1Thes 5:21 injunction to test ALL things, not just the ones you dislike.<
It is convenient to understand "all" here as including Scripture, while limiting Rm. 3:23. However, the examples we have of judging Scripture is that of discerning its meaning, while judging preaching by it is also clearly sanctioned. (Acts 17:11). And you might notice that the context of 1Thes. 5:21 is that of prophesying, cf. 1Cor. 14:29.
>Is there no limit to the nonsensical prattling that can be embraced so long as it's goal is the rejection of the CHURCH Jesus left us, as opposed to the BOOK codified hundreds of years after Pentecost?<
Rather, what is unlimited are the specious attempts to justify teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and to the reject Biblically manifest truth, that by Scripture teaching was and is to be proved, a rejection which is ecclesiastically driven by the need to promote the autocratic authority of Rome, which was long in developing, and depends upon its own declaration for its infallibility.
>I'm sure you intended your closing sentence:
"Unlike the Jews, Rome's authority is based upon her own declarations of authority, not Biblical faith, upon which (and by extension, its Object) the body of Christ is founded and overcomes."
to be your coup de gras!
Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked the fact, as is stated in 1 Tim 3:15, the "pillar and foundation of the truth" is the CHURCH, not "biblical faith," thus making your crescendo decidedly hollow. <
Nothing hollow at all, as this verse does nothing to negate the position that the Roman church (in particular) is not an infallibly authority over the Scriptures, while even the Jewish version of the Magisterium was manifestly not infallible.
[the] pillar [G4769 "stulos"; denoting support, or part of cf. Rev. 3:12; 10:1; Gal. 2:9]; and [G2532 "kai"; having a copulative, or cumulative force, as even, so, yea] ground [G1477 "hedraiōma"; denoting support or foundation] [of] the [G3588 "ho hē to"; which, the, this, etc.] truth. [G225 "alētheia"; truth].
"Hedraiōma" only occurs here in the Scripture, and depends on other texts for interpretation.
That the church both uniquely supports and upholds the truth, being the medium by which God communicates His truth to man, and defends it, is supported by Scripture. As is the fact that the church was birthed by faith, and overcomes by the same. Israel came into existence thru the faith of a man, and that is why the authenticity of a true Jew is not based upon correct genealogy, but Abrahamic type faith. (Rm. 2:28,29) Israel became the steward of the truth, while yet being subject to it, with prophets being instrumental in preserving the remnant.
The foundational truth upon which the church of the living God is founded is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, (Mt. 16:16), and that Christ, the object of said faith, is the foundation for the church is one of the most abundantly substantiated doctrines in the Bible. (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) And it is by faith that the souls which constitute the church become part of it, (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13), and only by faith in the Son of God can they and it overcome. (1Jn. 5:5)
The church is both a product of the truth and a steward of that which is given it, but like the Pharisees, when it presumes to add doctrines which are contrary to the truth of Scripture, then it must be reproved.
Overall, i find your responses have had little substance.
Here are some questions for discussion:
1. How does the RCC know it is infallible?
2. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?
3. Can we know for sure that we are interpreting correctly the infallibly definitions of the Catholic church?
4. How much of the Bible has been infallibly defined?
5. Is there any complete infallible list of all infallibly defined doctrines?
Thank you.
4
Actually, as the Bible reveals what this promise was, this is not a solid reference for proving that the Word of God includes revelation today that is outside the Bible.
Does it, indeed?
So you would have us ignore the obvious conclusion sitting right before us: that is, that the Holy Spirit is teaching us through this scripture "The Word of God" CANNOT be synonymous with the canon of scripture, to reach across the table for the much more "solid" teaching that inclusion of this narrative actually "weakens" that idea?
Who are you, Janet Napolitano? Your interpretive system "works" because it totally ignores the actual text of the scripture?
Look, I understand you feel like you've been ill-served by the Catholic Church, and I'm not saying you haven't been, but is that justification for embracing absolutely ludicrous interpretations so long as they inveigh against the Catholic claim to authority?
Honestly, don't you think you should at least find out what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims before you present those claims like Moses coming down the mountain?
I mean look at what you're quoting, man:
"Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."
Don't you see what meaningless drivel this is? It's an utter tautology! "Tall people are taller than short people, because of their height!" "Everything you need to know is either explicit or implicit!" "The only directions you need are 'right or left!'"
For Pete's sake, you SS guys can't even agree on the role and doctrine of baptism. And if you believe Hebrews 6:2, where do you get off presuming to teach?
I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to refute every point of your blitzkrieg: but I could. I'm telling you as someone who has been in your shoes. If you will actually listen to what Catholics have to say about scripture instead of what Protestants have to say about Catholics, you will find it makes MORE sense, not less.
You certainly won't get any of that dopey "petra, petras" nonsense reformation "scholars" have been selling to get away from the clear and obvious meaning of Matt 16:18. Nonsense which by-the-way is thouroughly debunked by no less than D.A.Carson!
No, he doesn't endorse the obvious meaning, but he does put to rest the "little stone" theory, which is the lingustic equivalent of claiming "butterflies" have something to do with "flies" and "butter."
>Ah, I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning... So you would have us ignore the obvious conclusion sitting right before us: that is, that the Holy Spirit is teaching us through this scripture “The Word of God” CANNOT be synonymous with the canon of scripture, to reach across the table for the much more “solid” teaching that inclusion of this narrative actually “weakens” that idea?
Who are you, Janet Napolitano? Your interpretive system “works” because it totally ignores the actual text of the scripture?<
PT, as foremost SS apologists state, SS does not deny an oral stage, and the fact is that the “Word of God” or “the Word of the Lord” can refer to Scripture, and thus by extension, its complete compilation, and it is you that is ignoring things if you contend otherwise, as it is clear that the Word of God/of the Lord can specifically refer to the Scriptures, and in fact, it can used be in contrast with tradition! (Mk. 7:10-13; etc.)
What the Holy Spirit does teach in Lk. 2:26 (which is similar to Jer 32:8) and around 200 other places, is that the Word of God, as regards specific revelation given to persons, especially prophets, subsequently became part of scripture as the norm. (search “the word of the Lord” if you want proof) As one whom you claim for your own stated, “We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God’s will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. — St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1
Broadly speaking, the word of God” also can be used for general preaching of the gospel, (Acts 8:4) and for apostolic instruction, (2Thes. 2:15) though it cannot be established that such truth was not revealed in Scripture, and i find no examples where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from Scripture.
If you had said that the Word of God” cannot ALWAYS be said to be refer to Scripture then that would be another case, but apparently your interpretative system of me works because you ignore what i say, or you failed to comprehended that i do not limit God’s revelation to the Scriptures, but that all other revelation claiming to be such, when it is made known, from the RC’s to the Mormons to Muhammad’s, is subject to testing by that codified body of revelation which is affirmed to contain that which is wholly “breathed” of God. In contrast to this is “sola ecclesia,” in which a particular church proclaims it the supreme and infallible authority, if they do say so themselves. History testifies when that happens both the souls are well as the bodies of good men are in danger.
But if you are going to make church tradition equal to the Scriptures, then you will have to do better than Lk. 2:26, and prove apostolic authority to add to the canon. But the apostles and writers who did add to the Scriptures as they then existed, did not add traditions which are unsupported by Scripture, or are demonstrably contrary to it, and thus Christ alone is exalted as the Heavenly intercessor, and the head pastorate was not restricted to those who have the gift of celibacy, etc.
Honestly, don’t you think you should at least find out what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims before you present those claims like Moses coming down the mountain?<
Eloquent, but honestly, my reasons for not embracing the claims of Rome are because its makes critical claims that are critically unwarranted, and its gospel is not salvific, though a few who see past the institutionalized trappings and truly become born again. But as i seek to test all that body of revelation which is assured to be infallible, i also reject some beliefs of some Protestants.
As far as what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims, such apologetical responses can vary somewhat, and i do address them when engaging with those who promote them. I also respond to official Catholic reactions to challenges to her doctrine, such as Trents, though these themselves are subject to some degree of interpretation by Roman apologists. Yet, as pointed out before, it is not simply what an entity teaches that must be considered as representing what it teaches, but what it effectually conveys.
The Inquisitors would be shocked to see what is allowed to pass for Roman Catholicism today, though theocracies, Catholic or Puritan, ruling over those without, or the use of carnal force by the church to discipline its members in spiritual matter has no real support under the New Covenant, unless you want to try to extrapolate that out of Lk. 22:38, as some apologists attempt. The apostles would not threaten men like Galileo with physical torture by the church to reveal their supposedly ulterior motives. The Pope’s optional use of two swords is patterned after the empire in which it was birthed, resulting in a type of a Caesario-Papacy, even as Boniface VIII claimed it was.
Moreover, as regards responses, due to the lack of more comprehensive infallible defined teaching, Rome’s approved (stamped) as well as more unrestrained writers can go beyond what is written in both Scripture and in official decrees, including making Mary Co-Redemptrix and ascribing thousands of devotional titles to her. Even today i heard a national Catholic teacher, John Corapi, declare that Mary even chastens wayward believers!
Such extrapolations of the extent of Mary’s virtues go beyond that which is written, as if the Holy Spirit was negligent to mention her or other departed saints when dealing with our heavenly object of prayer.
By no means, as it makes a warranted distinction between the supremacy and material (not formal) sufficiency of Scripture versus what Vatican 2 (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation , par.9, 10, 21, p. 117, 125) stated, that “it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed”, but holds that her nebulous sacred church tradition, “hands on in its full purity God’s word”, and which has resulted in such new found things as praying to other beings in Heaven but the LORD, which, among other certain beliefs, has no real Scriptural support, but doctrinally depends upon implicit trust in Rome’s self-proclaimed ecclesiastical authority.
Yet, as said before, SS does not disallow tradition or teachers, but their teaching is subject to proof by the Scriptures which provides for them. as Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie state,
The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather
wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
While one Catholic apologist likes to say, “we are not taught by a teacher without a book or by a book without a teacher, but by one teacher, the Church, with one book, Scripture”, yet the disciple is not above his master, (Mt. 10:24) and the church itself is taught by the certain immutable, tangible and affirmed-infallible Word, which true-hearted souls are called noble for checking things by, and the church draws from and passes on teaching that is proven by Scripture, not that which contradicts it or adds unwarranted doctrines.
While “you guys” wrongly supposes that I represent or defend all you may label Protestant, the ones i would commend more at least hold that baptism is commanded, and recognize that the word here is not your singular baptism, but plural, as Scripture reveals that there is more than one baptism, one type being of the Spirit in placing one in the church, 1Cor. 12:13) and that which is done physically (Acts 8:38), with the possibility of a “second blessing” or baptism with the Spirit as well, (Acts 1:8; 8:17; Gal. 3:5), though all can take place at conversion. (Acts 2:38; 10:44,45)
However, the premise behind your question is that Protestantism is to be treated as a monolithic institution, and since there is disunity among them then no one in them has authority to teach. Yet you only ascribe authority to a single church based upon its internal agreement on this issue, regardless if its self-proclaimed infallibly declared teaching can withstand Scriptural scrutiny. But if Rome can assert the right to teach based upon her internal agreement, so can another church which professes the same unity.
The Roman church will appeal to apostolic succession and history in response, but to do so it must fulfill the criteria for apostolic succession, that of seeing the LORD and being personally discipled by Him, (Acts 1:21,22, 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12,16,17) with characteristic supernatural signs and wonders, and not suppose that the authenticity of the ecclesiastic is like that which the Pharisees and Sadducees supposed, and that God could not raise up children to God from stones (cf. Mt. 3:9), and a church from a stone like Peter, who places his faith in the Rock of offense, (1Pet. 2:8) as it is manifestly upon Him that the church is most essentially founded and built upon. (1Cor. 3:11)
Moreover, as the New Testament does not sanction a person like Caiaphas even as a member of the church (search sexual active popes), then well over a centuries worth of ecclesiastical “papal progeny” are illegitimate, based upon morals alone, and such were not simply momentary uncharacteristic failures such as sanctified Peter was reproved for as recorded in Gal. 2.
Part two:
>I don’t have the time, nor the inclination, to refute every point of your blitzkrieg: but I could. I’m telling you as someone who has been in your shoes. If you will actually listen to what Catholics have to say about scripture instead of what Protestants have to say about Catholics, you will find it makes MORE sense, not less.<
Pt, while i admit my tendency toward rather extended responses, it is you who pressed me to respond to your proof text, but you have failed to refute my position on SS by such, blithe dismissals and sarcasm notwithstanding.
As for your personal appeal here, I do not think your shoe fits, and I have seen both realms myself, in opposite order (if i understand your story correctly). Also, despite your previous charge, I am not blindly following persons, and in the fear of God i have examined whether even cardinal doctrines such as the Deity of Christ were warranted, and having found such are, thus i can make my defense of such. It is such proof that i expect for major doctrines, while allowing a limited amount of debate within a limited amount of the Bible, insomuch as comparing Scripture with Scripture allows it.
My experience does show that there are sometimes misrepresentations of doctrine on both sides of the Roman Catholic Protestant debate, and i do seek to seek to substantiate what is taught. I can acknowledge validity, or degrees thereof, or weaknesses of arguments on both sides, though the required devotion to Rome seems to disallow some Roman Catholics from doing that as regards their own. I go further than most Evangelicals countering Catholics in upholding the primacy of Peter, though not as the demi-god the Pope historically has been. And while i find little warrant for the perpetuation of his office, much less as being substantiated by Rome’s claim to historical validity, and although I see God still building his church using stones like Peter, as pastors who effectually confess Jesus as who He is, yet I see the warrant and viability of a broader general ecclesiastical authority, with its validity based upon purity, power and Scriptural probity as regards the most essential salvific doctrines. If Rome had relied on such, rather than it often using the Sword and or politics, its line of popes papacy would have long ago been more disrupted than even her problematic line of continuity already evidences.
I also do not see everything i disagree with Rome as being equally critical (i would allow some could believe in transubstantiation, by itself, and yet be born again) but as expressed before, the main issue is a gospel which even allows, by official teaching and or by effectual conveyance, souls to rely on the merit of their works or the power of their church for salvation, which is more appealing to man and which Rome does support and fosters, rather than abasing themselves before God as sinners utterly destitute of any merit for eternal life, but fully worthy of eternal damnation, and so with a poor and contrite call upon the sinless LORD Jesus to save them, whole-heartedly believing that He will do so, by faith in Him who died and rose for them, and thus follow Him. The nature of man, as religions show, is to believe God will grant them deliverance from Hell eternal life on the basis of some merit of their works and sacrifices, and or that of religious affiliation (as well as presuming that God will forgive with a less than perfect sacrifice), rather than abasing themselves as sinners who have neither, and exalt God as only holy and just, and so cast all their faith in the one whose sacrifice He accepts, and are thus justified by faith, trusting God to do what they are incapable of doing. Unless preaching works to convict souls of this condition and need, infant baptism notwithstanding, and offers no escape other than honest divestiture of any hope of heaven on any merit of their own (including by God’s grace), and utter faith-dependance upon Christ and His blood, then souls will accept any soteriology which allows them to escape such abasement and its surrender, and instead feel that to some degree they can merit eternal life with God. Both explicit statements and examples from the thief on the cross to the penitent publican show otherwise.
As far as sense is concerned, the main argument of Roman Catholic apologists is that one must assent to Rome in order to be assured of doctrinal proof, and to have assured salvation (or even to be saved, as Unam Sanctum requires) as “private judgment” (Acts 17:11) simply will not do, and results in more divisions (greatly inflated) than titles for Mary. However, this requires relying on ones own own fallible private judgment that Rome is what she claims to be, having judged herself worthy of such, while the principle of relying on an infallible-type interpreter of Scripture for truth has resulted in a great number of destructive religious cults. While the latter means usually does result in a greater type of unity, the quality of such is inferior to that which is a result of judging claims of truth based most supremely upon that which is affirmed to be wholly inspired by the Spirit of truth, (2Tim. 3:16)
In addition, and to reiterate, i find it dangerous to place such faith in an institution whose basis for authority is that it claimed, in a certain form, that it is infallible, when it makes a claim in a certain form, which fits the formula by which it declared itself infallible, and by such denies that no other interpretation regarding texts used for its doctrine of infallibility can be right; especially when that institution is the Roman Catholic Institution, whose teachings often much depend upon this decree, and on equating unwritten truths about faith and morals with Scripture, rather than evident Scriptural warrant.
In contrast, I see the apostles appealing to private judgment (1Cor. 10:15; 2Cor. 4:2; 1Thes. 5:21) in the light of Scripture, (Acts 2:14-35; 7; 10:43; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 3;4; Heb. 1ff; etc.), as well as natural revelation, (Acts 41:15-17; 17:25) and supernatural attestation, (Acts 2:22,33; 10:38; 2Cor. 12:12) in seeking to convince souls. In such preaching, appeal to any authority of themselves was limited to their having actually been with, seen and taught by the resurrected LORD, (Acts 10:39-41; 22:14; 1Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:15-17; 1Jn. 1:1) with overt (usually) supernatural testimony being an accompanying characteristic (Acts 4:3; Rm. 15:18,19; 2Cor. 12:12 ) Once their authority was established by the above, obedience to their Scripturally-based judgment was enjoined, (1Cor. 11) and which authority was substantiated, again, by purity, doctrinal integrity, and supernatural power. (2Cor. 6:1-10) “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. “ (1Cor. 4:20, cf. v. 21; 5:1-5; 2Cor. 13:3,4)
Many whom you count as fathers expressed words exalting the supremacy of Scripture in determining truth (whether they rightly did so may be contested), which is not to the exclusion of church authority and teaching, but that such must be tested by Scripture, even if that may allow some disagreement in some areas.
...would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. — St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, (Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)
“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” — St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” — St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the) truth. — St. Athanasius 296-373, (Orat. Contr. Gent. Tom. I
If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written? - St. Athanasius, (De Incarn. Chr.)
In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. — St. Athanasius (adv. Gentes init.)
More here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
In short, Rome’s appeal to implicitly trust and submit to her as man’s infallible guide does make sense if that is the kind of unity the Bible promotes, and the means by which truth is assured. However, it does not make sense if the Bible reproves those who presumed to such power, (Mt. 15:3-6) and shows souls being gained as they were convinced of truth due to its Scriptural integrity, and testified to by supernatural means, rather than implicit trust in men, with history testifying to negative effects of holding men above the Bible. (1Cor. 4:6) And again, which effects have been far more destructive to both soul and body than divisions among evangelicals, who essentially preach the same gospel of regeneration.
Moreover, while divisions are an unfortunate if sometimes necessary (1Cor. 11:19) reality, evangelical Protestants are in broad agreement as concerns the truths expressed in the Apostles Creed (catholic being universal), that of God being the Creator, the trinitarian view of the Godhead, the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, death, burial and the resurrection (which infers the forgiveness of sins thereby), Christ’s ascension and second coming, and life after death. Studies also show their flocks typically indicate a greater unity on basic doctrinal issues than Catholics. They support a vast network of evangelical ministries, from Calvary Chapels to John MacArthur, who hold to the aforementioned basics, and which preach the basic evangelical gospel of grace through faith.
As for disagreements resulting from SS, division because of commitment to the truth is superior to unity based on error, and many good things have their dangers, from free will to invoking miracles for Divine attestation. Yet the right application of sola Scriptura, which requires obedience to revealed truth, has helped to strengthen the aforementioned basic unity across various denominations, as well as result in evangelicals being among or the foremost apologists against errors and anti-Christ arguments (and which are usually the result of a church being over the Bible).
As for the acclaimed unity of Rome, this is more limited than it may appear, and is largely a paper unity, as first, little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and no infallible list of all such is even available, and second, it is easily substantiated that there are diversity of viewpoints among both Catholic clergy and laity alike, even as concerns cardinal doctrines. The difference is Roman Catholics can hold to such and remain in Rome, with actual discipline being rarely exercised. While this is also true in evangelicals today, it is shown to be more widespread in Catholicism.
It should also be recognized that just as evangelicals have historically rejected those who deny basic tenets of faith which are generally universally held, so the dogmas of Rome’s infallible Sacred Magisterium require an assent of faith, with the opposite being heresy. And while evangelicals have also typically allowed some degree of disagreement in non-salvific areas, so also the teachings of the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error. http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm
>actually listen to what Catholics have to say about Scripture...<
I do listen as engaged, and do some research, and while not being a really seasoned debater, i have been in a few extended email debates with others, including one who is now has a show a radio station. The latter focused on but could not Scripturally substantiate annulments according to Rome’s criteria, or her singular power to bind or loose marital bonds (her also prays he might be one of the two prophets in Rev., as that is not infallibly defined), while the former did not want to discuss the warrant of Scripture, but it came down to him requiring of me prior assent that Rome is infallible in order to be assured of salvific truth, (rather than the need for truth being demonstrated by the infallible Scriptures).
I was aware such exist, and i am sure it is heartening to find an evangelical who agrees with you, just as it is when Protestants see Rome asserting, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”’ (Roman Catholic Catechism, pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). While the latter does not deny the former, it is in conformity with some church fathers, while the idea of an infallible pope was even farther from unanimous.
Without entering into the debate about the Greek, or the Greek vs the Aramaic which RC’s attempt, if the clear and obvious meaning of Matt 16:18 is as Rome supposes, then, as with other major doctrines - and the perpetuated Petrine papacy is a most major doctrine – then we must expect to see clear substantiation for this, in which there is not real alternative interpretation. But while the Scriptures abundantly testifies that Christ is the stone and rock upon which the church is built, by faith in Him which Peter confessed, and by such it overcomes, and while Peter’s brethren-type pastoral role (Jn. 21:15-19; 1Pt. 1:1) itself should not be in dispute, yet both the type of papacy which Rome depends upon, as well a its perpetuity, critically fails substantiation, especially in the light of the preeminence of Rome’s doctrine concerning it.
In no place - even in the church epistles where it would be expected - do we see even one command given to the church universal to submit to Peter as it’s supreme head, and outside 1+2 Peter, he is only mentioned in 2 of the letters to the churches (1 Cor. and Gal.), not even in the extensive lists of Paul’s friends in Rome. (cp. 16) Peter is also absent in the Spirit’s word to the churches in Revelation. Nor does Peter ever refer to himself as anything greater than “an elder“, “a” servant and “an” apostle and “an” elder (1 Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2 Pt. 2:1).
Nor is there one example of the churches looking to Peter as an infallible pope. Acts 15, in which Scriptural and testimonial warrant for a matter of church disciple was established, is often cited in support of a supreme and infallible Peter over all, yet while Peter’s testimony was a key, as he was the first apostle to employ the means of entrance into the kingdom for Gentiles, (Acts 10) and while he affirmed what Paul in particular had communicated and was preaching, (Acts 13,14; Gal. 2:1,2) yet is was James who not only doctrinally concurred and added to Peter’s words, it, but who gave the declarative sentence on its application. This event, nor Paul’s words in Gal. 2 concerning James, Peter and John, in that order, does not convey the demigod status which Rome affords its “supreme Pontiff,” over both the spiritual and temporal realm.
Other texts regarding the Biblical Peter reveal him to be married (1 Cor. 9:5), a poor man (Acts 3:6), and one who would not allow the manner of obeisance (Act 10:25, 26) or royal opulence which has been typical the Romish papacy, but is more worldly than Christ-like. (Benny Hinn, etc., take note also.)
In critical addition, while the Holy Spirit makes clear provision for a successor to no less than Judas, and provides explicit instructions on the ordination of bishop/elders, not such provision or instructions are given for a successor to Peter.
Exactly...I've hit them with the same question...
But instead of facing it head on, they will misquote verses, leave half of the verse out, take it completly out of context and any number of tactics to make scripture fit their theology...
I guess it's fine for those new converts that don't know scripture and for Catholics who don't read it anyway, but to those of us that do study the scriptures, it sure makes them look foolish...
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.