Mommah; are we gonna stomp some devil to-naaaght?
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
I guess instead of counting sheep
RC’s can count their convoluted flip-flops in dogma, rubberized history etc.
Hopefully, not for long. However, I am not an American Catholic, I am Catholic who is also an American (naturalized, in my case). The Catholic Bible is the Vulgate; the NAB is approved for liturgical use in the vernacular. I am not disputing a liturgical point of the vernacular; it is not likely that you are. The Vulgate says "poenitentiam agite". That is the accurate translation.
[Metanoia is] a change of heart which resulted in a change of life
Exactly. Quite often, the change of life includes oblations such as fasting and abstinence of creature comforts, -- see the monastic practices of two thousand years tat follow the pattern set by St. John the Baptist. "Must" (your contention in 6922, see word in bold) the life long work of conversion follow "formal public physical manifestations of repentance"? Well, no. No one is forced to be a monk. It is just a good idea. I will have a gereatwer repect for modern Protestantism when I see some asceticism voluntarily practiced.
saved in one day, as the 3k souls at Pentecost
When a Protestant says "saved" he often implies that the work of faith has been complete in that person. Do you imply that?
Yes, it could be thus justified. That is the reason these were written: we are saved by works of mercy, not to the exclusion of faith itself, of course, but by the works of mercy nevertheless.
texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology
I would say, the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around. Fortunately for St. Paul, his "express" soteriology is Catholic: " [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). We are saved by grace alone, which is not of works, through faith and good works that God gives us to do. We are not saved by faith alone in any sense in which faith can be understood to be alone (James 2:17-26)
it is either a system of justification by the merit of works, which, if possible, would be under the law
There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.
texts such as “not of works” (Eph. 2:19) “not by works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) “to him that worketh not,” (Rm. 4:5) go beyond merely works of the law but logically excludes any system in which works are the basis for justification.
Some of the usual Protestant prooftexts refer specifically to works of the law, circumcision and kashrut being the chief contention, others contrast grace and works. Indeed, grace is not of works, as it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:9). All these prooftexts ignore the larger context where good works are urged often immediately after explaining how works of the law do not save.
Further, the casuistry of works being "expressive nature of faith" but at the same time apparently not being a part of faith so to justify the unbiblical slogan of "faith alone" is wholly unnecessary for one who simply reads the Holy Scripture in order to understand it, as Catholics do.
Paul [...] is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness
First, Paul is merely quoting the Old Testament as regards the paternity of Abraham. But St. Paul also noticed that the faith of Abraham was unseparable of his works, crossing the desert and offering Isaac up for sacrifice (Hebrews 11). What we conclude from Romans 4:1-5 is the Catholic teaching, that faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work, but it alone does not save those who are able to do them.
if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers
The difference is that one who follows a formal law receives the benefit in this life (stays out of jail, gains respect of his tribesmen, pockets the wage), and one who does the good works of charity receives the eternal benefit by suffers in the temporal life. (Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 16:25)
i see salvific grace granting repentance
Correct. All salvific works that we might do are granted us by grace of God.
despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.
We are Christians by virtue of baptism, not birth. That is to say, at least in the case of baptised infants, God chose us before we chose Him. To say that good works eventually produce faith is indeed what Catholics believe, and the faith that results is not "proxy faith" but just regular Christian faith.
more later...
Annalex: Where is the "artistry"?
Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."
But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".
may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation
The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.
if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.
It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning. Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.
The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.
No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.
If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.
No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".
it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word
If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water. Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.
in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.
Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.
Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)
46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.
Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it. However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?
the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.
But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.
...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
No argument there.
non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist
That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).
it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with
We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.
you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard
Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.
Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation
That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.
he NAB is the official Bible of the U.S. Conference of Bishops
Hopefully, not for long. However, I am not an American Catholic, I am Catholic who is also an American (naturalized, in my case).
Which in practical terms means?? Catholics can read that and other Bibles, in contrast to much of her history, but I do not think Rome would allow your condition to forsake the use of the NAB in Mass if you were a priest. But this is just one more thing which Catholics take issue with their church about, partly for legitimate reasons. The NAB impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems and gender inclusive language.
The USCCB owns the copyright for the NAB and the RNAB, and a Catholic podcast Lectionary even got a quick "cease and desist" letter for violating copyright However, their Bible text had to be amended for the lectionary because the Vatican rejected it for Mass no one in authority seems inclined to incorporate these same emendations back into the RNAB.
Also, the NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum, which was the result of a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy, and states that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited domain, which at least one frequent Roman Catholic poster here seems to think, if that, versus what Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus states. Of course, there is also disagreement as to whether all encyclicals are infallible, or how much therein is. Also debated is whether the Bible teaches geocentrism.
saved in one day, as the 3k souls at Pentecost
When a Protestant says "saved" he often implies that the work of faith has been complete in that person. Do you imply that?
If you mean a faith that is alone, having no fruit, and no growth in grace, then that is a superficial, if convenient, understanding, and you should have know my answer by now. If you mean that at that moment the person is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) spiritually baptized into body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13), and translated into the the kingdom of God and made to sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6) and would go to be with the Lord that day if he died, but who is to become more and more practically what he is positionally, to one toward completeness, yes.
“we are saved by works of mercy, not to the exclusion of faith itself, of course, but by the works of mercy nevertheless.
There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.
Paul does not simply exclude works of the law, but broadly excludes works as being the moral basis of justification. If you read Titus 3:5 you should see “not by works of righteousness which we have done” is not simply referring to formality of law.
Paul [...] is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness
First, Paul is merely quoting the Old Testament as regards the paternity of Abraham. But St. Paul also noticed that the faith of Abraham was unseparable of his works, crossing the desert and offering Isaac up for sacrifice (Hebrews 11).
No, in Rm. 4 Paul is not “merely quoting the O.T. as regards the paternity of Abraham,” but in order to describe how man is justified before God. As stated before, Abraham was helpless to have children, and could only believe God that He was willing and able to do what he could not do, that”what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Rm. 4:21,22) Likewise sinful man unable to justify himself before a holy and just God, and can only “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” (Rm. 4:24,25)
That saving faith must be one that continues, and must be a faith that produces works (if able) in order to finally realize the end of faith is also true, (Heb. 6:9-12) but the fact is that Abraham was justified by such faith. And in so stating this Paul is not only excluding works of the law as procuring justification, but works that Abraham did prior to believing the promise, and prior to circumcision.
Some of the usual Protestant prooftexts refer specifically to works of the law, circumcision and kashrut being the chief contention, others contrast grace and works. Indeed, grace is not of works, as it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:9). All these prooftexts ignore the larger context where good works are urged often immediately after explaining how works of the law do not save.
Rm. 4 does NOT only refer to works of the law, nor does Eph. 2:8,9 or Titus 3:5 (written to a Gentile), but broadly contrasts faith and works as disallowing anything as meriting justification, while the later exhortation to do good works show what justifying faith. Produces.
Further, the casuistry of works being "expressive nature of faith" but at the same time apparently not being a part of faith so to justify the unbiblical slogan of "faith alone" is wholly unnecessary for one who simply reads the Holy Scripture in order to understand it, as Catholics do.
It is most evident that Catholics cannot admit any understanding of the Bible that conflicts with the self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus must make the effect of initial justification its cause, and infer justificatory moral merit to works.
texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology
I would say, the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around.
Wrong, an a fundamental error within Roman Catholicism. It is self evident that Divine revelation is overall progressive in nature, and thus we understand the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, and the obscure in the light of clear, and historical narratives in the light of doctrinal explanations. Among the gospels, besides the narrative of Jesus mission and its relation to prophecy, the synoptics contain much moral teaching and the gospel of the kingdom, while John is most revelatory about the nature of Christ and of salvation to all who believe. Acts shows application of things Jesus taught, with conversion happening in one day, even in a desolate place to a man who likely was ignorant of a church, while the epistles explain the theology behind such, complementing it with additional revelation which Jesus promised. (Jn. 16:12-15)
And in which the apostle Paul is the chief revelator and theologian of the N. Covenant, being given “the gospel of the grace of God” which he neither received of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:2) And who most fully deals with how one is justified as concerns faith or works, grace justifying one through faith, but a kind of faith which is expressed in works, eternal life being a pure gift of God, versus morally merited by works.
Fortunately for St. Paul, his "express" soteriology is Catholic: " [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). We are saved by grace alone, which is not of works, through faith and good works that God gives us to do. We are not saved by faith alone in any sense in which faith can be understood to be alone (James 2:17-26)
You are construing the contrast between grace through faith versus works to mean “For by grace you are saved... not by works — but “by works of mercy“ of faith. What the texts is stating is how one is saved under grace, which is through faith, not of works, while affirming works by stating that believers are God's works, made to do good works, as faith effects such.
despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.
We are Christians by virtue of baptism, not birth. That is to say, at least in the case of baptised infants, God chose us before we chose Him.
One is a Christian by virtue of Christ, received by faith, which is shown in baptism. And infants need not baptism nor can they meet the requirements for baptism. (Acts 2:28; 8:37) That God chose the elect from before time that does not negate the need for conversion.
To say that good works eventually produce faith is indeed what Catholics believe, and the faith that results is not "proxy faith" but just regular Christian faith.
Good works do not “produce“ faith, though a command to do something can prepare a soul to believe, and the act can be the occasion when faith is realized.
What we conclude from Romans 4:1-5 is the Catholic teaching, that faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work, but it alone does not save those who are able to do them.
So “good works eventually produce faith,” and one is “saved by works of mercy” done in faith, but “faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work.” Under the last provision Rome affirms sola fide, by a kind of faith what will work. I agree faith and works are so much conjoined that it is hard to separate them, but while all that man does is by grace, works have no merit themselves that save; man has nothing to offer God that he may escape hell to gain glory, but can only place his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, which is counted for righteousness, appropriating forgiveness and justification, which he then lives out, having been regenerated. The latter is the necessary attribute of saving faith, assuming opportunity, and one can be said to have been justified by works of faith, as establishing one is a saved soul, in contrast to a barren faith.
if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers
The difference is that one who follows a formal law receives the benefit in this life (stays out of jail, gains respect of his tribesmen, pockets the wage), and one who does the good works of charity receives the eternal benefit by suffers in the temporal life. (Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 16:25)
The lost Pharisees hope of reward was not simply for this life, and they had faith that God would count them morally worthy of reigning with the Messiah. Likewise the Judaizers Paul combated.
Saving faith is confidence in the Lord and not one's own worthiness. One can have faith that God will be faithful to reward his sufferings and works, but he can never suppose his works make him morally worthy of God and eternal life with Him, which is only gained by Christ on His blood-expense and righteousness, and is received by the damned destitute soul by faith. Works of love and suffering wrought as a result of being accepted in the Beloved will be rewarded, but do not morally merit eternal life.
While Roman Catholicism may define merit in a way that excludes moral worthiness, and make a distinction in what type of works are recompensed, unless souls are made to face their sinfulness and moral destitution, and absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness, then they will go one presuming that to some degree or another their morality and or the power of their church will gain them eventual cohabitation with almighty God. And which is what Rome effectually fosters. And such will tragically die in their sins, to their eternal horror.
Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."
But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".
It is not a passing reference, as being consistent with John's gospel and epistles, eternal life is received by believing in no uncertain terms. Again, you cannot find any place where one is made spiritually alive by eating and drinking, but by believing on the blood of Christ, while living out that life as by a guide is done as Jesus did, (Jn. 6:57) according to God's word and will, which did not involve eating blood to do so. See more below.
The discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disciples his actual flesh to eat parallels what the Lord did in Jn. 3 in speaking enigmatically about being “born again,” resulting in Nic supposing Jesus referred to being born again physically, like as the carnally-minded Jews in Jn. 6 thought Jesus referred to physical food. And those that are not born from above try to conform the physical plane to their physical understanding. But in both cases the Lord made a difference between the flesh and the Spirit, with the latter giving life, showing He was speaking analogically, likening physical birth to spiritual birth, and physically eating to spiritually eating. And which is the only interpretation the rest of the New Testament supports, as showed.
may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation
The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.
The water itself does nothing, and the dietary and purification practices prefigures the spiritual in the new, and thus the temple itself was a prefigurement of the spiritual church, and surely you would not dispute that the allegorical use of eating and such things as David equating the water gotten at the risk of their live of his men with that of their blood would prepare the Lord's apostles for His words in the Last Supper. Again, to presume such kosher Jews would consume Jesus' literal flesh and blood without a word of query like as Peter did later in Acts 10, when right up to the supper and even in it they are shown to question things that troubled them, is absurd. And in no place do we see a miracle in which Jesus was physically in two places at once, such as being in the disciple's stomachs while sitting before them.
if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.
It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning.
So when Jesus says He is a door, (Jn. 10:9) then Rome holds that a in the church is transubstantiated so that a door is really Jesus while maintaining the appearance of wood? Maybe they could say that this is how Jesus got through closed doors. (Jn. 20:19,26)
Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.
It is Rome that explains the defining conclusion away, in which, after stating He would not even be there physically, He states, “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) Rome explains this away (the the NAB footnote on “Spirit . . . flesh:” says “probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6) to disallow that this means spiritual consumption, like a Jesus lived by the Father, and which the rest of the Scripture concurs with. Thus Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Jn. 6:68.69) Rome tries to make this refer to Jesus words in Jn. 6, but nowhere does John or any other writer have eternal life being received by consuming the Lord's supper. Instead, we have words such as in the next chapter,
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:37-39) And Scripture confirms this life is realized by becoming born again, such as in Acts 10:43ff.
And then in the next chapters we read,
"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." (John 9:35-38)
"And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there." (John 10:41-42)
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." (John 11:25-27)
As for losing disciples, those who left Him were those who had come for physical food, (Jn. 6:26) their minds being on what is below, and those who try to turn bread into Jesus might as well try to be physically born again. However, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,” (v. 29) and which, consistent with what is written, means those who believe the gospel message realize life, and live by His word. While this includes keeping the Lord's supper, they get life by believing, and they way they live it out is by His word, of which the Lord's supper is only an occasional (“as oft as ye do this”) part and is to help show this life of love for each other.
Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)
46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.
Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it.
Rather, every Catholic who thinks that John 6 talks of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read that passage, and Mt. 4:4 which Jesus quoted to the devil who also took things quire literal, and then read all the verses again on how one gets spiritual life, and what and how one lives.
However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?
That was never in disputation, and if you read my replies you should realize that i affirmed that believers are to fulfill their righteousness of the law, which confirms their faith as salvific, but to the degree that they do does not make them morally worthy of eternal life. Do you dispute that you are not?
The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.
No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.
It seems that your “no” is yes, which it is. Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, and just what is infallible magisterial teaching is far from settled.
If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.
No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".
What Roman Catholic church do you belong to? Your own NAB Bible and the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars deny you this assertion, as do most Roman Catholics. Meanwhile it is evangelicals who are accused by Roman Catholics of being guilty of literal interpretation. You really seem to see the Roman Catholic through rose colored glasses and evangelicals through the opposite, but i have lived all my life in Roman Catholic “country,” and have been in both and know the difference.
it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word
If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water.
It is Roman Catholics you are not surrendered to the very Scriptures you condescending use, as they are a secondary authority for them at best, and their conclusions are not by comprehensive objective analysis, which they seem to disdain, but as you continue to show, are ordered by allegiance to Rome. And rather than running from Roman Catholic misconstruance of Scripture we are prone to contend for them, and relatively far and few between are the Roman Catholics who even will debate them. Meanwhile the idea that SS Protestantism is contrary to works of faith is contrary to the facts, which show Roman Catholicism is the one that marginalizes such obedience, due to confidence in their morality, and their church to make up for the lack of it.
Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.
Christ says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” which is clearly defined as believing the gospel and living it by His word through the Spirit, but Roman Catholics refuse to accept the Bible interpreting itself and surrender to it, and instead rely upon an a self-proclaimed infallible interpreter. Indeed, “some surrender.”
in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.
Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.
One cannot be sure of faith and morals except by the assuredly infallible magisterium, and polemical Catholic appeals to Scripture as the supreme authority which one can ascertain truth by has at its goal the convincing of one that he cannot, but is to implicit trust the AIM of Rome. And being bound to defend Rome militates against arriving at objective logical conclusions.
the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.
But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.
This is just another indication of how dedication to Rome might determine perception. Protestants are actually typically accused of rejecting the teaching magisterium and just going by Scripture, and indeed rather than running to pastors first they are trained to examined all teaching by Scripture. In contrast, it is Catholics who speak of relying upon men, and who rush to see what their pastors says rather than objectively seeking to ascertain truth by the Scriptures! Such responses makes this interaction closer to an end.
...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
No argument there.
non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist
That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).
It is not humorous or ironic, as while it is a foundational divine institution (Heb. 6:1) which Protestantism has always practiced, you missed the point which is the fundamental basis for authority. Which is not by formal historical decent or conference but most essentially is that of holiness, teaching and effects which correspond to the Scriptures, being attested to by God.
it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with
We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.
Placing implicit trust in an office of men means your mind is in cult-like bondage. If Rome were more doctrine and disciple intensive like the WTC, then it would be more extreme.
you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard
Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.
No, it is a lower standard, as it elevates the opinions of men and interpretations thereof above that objective authority which alone is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallible.
Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation
That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.
It is i how have much affirmed that a believer must realize who/what he is in Christ, though being one who sadly yet does sin, but I am honestly disturbed at your seeming attitude expressed here and in other replies on this issue, as if men realizing their damnable and destitute condition and utter inability to escape their just punishment in eternal Hell fire or gain eternal life with God by any moral merit of their own — and thus trust in the mercy of God in Christ, for Him to forgive them right then and there, and make them His own, receiving the gift of eternal life life — was a pre condition that was just “fine, and not necessary. We should be alarmed any teaching that such a faith and condition does not mean it must continue if real, and seek to on to perfection, and do works that will be rewarded, but one cannot do such unless they are first made accepted in the Beloved, to the glory of God.
Well put.
The Law defines good works. Anything outside of that is not a good work. So this reasoning that there is now a new set of works outside the Law that we now have to obey to enter heaven is fallacious.
Jesus came to fulfill the requirements of the Law because we can't. He did and offers us His righteousness for simply believing Him. That's the work of God, to believe in the One who sent Christ. We are then clothed with Christ's righteousness and God does not count our sins against us.
Works are important. They do please God and people will hear a *Well done thou good and faithful servant* from Him.
However, works are the fruit, the natural product of the new life of God in an individual. They are evidence of that Life and they are what demonstrates the power of God to heal and forgive. It's what draws others to Himself and what He uses to draw others to Himself.
But they are not the means by which anyone is saved. Jesus even said that there would be many who appealed to their works and said, "'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'" and He will say that He never knew them.
They obviously believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they obviously thought that the works they added would save them. It was their faith that was deficient, not their works.
It didn't. Don't make the same mistake.
Then you've changed your position on the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Scripture does say Jesus had brothers and sisters.
There is no way to read those verses as anything other than Mary's and Joseph's children after he knew her after the birth of Christ.
Likewise with her alleged sinlessness. For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and there is none greater among men born of woman than John the Baptist.
JDOTDJ? IDKWTM.
I did not realize that. This points to the fact that the planets are not aligned at this time for reunification, contrary to what I thought.
So then that finished product is inerrant. The New Testament truly is a collective product of the Church; naturally, its creation was a hstorical process. Its inerrancy is, however, "as written" by that collective process, primarily by Sts Matthew, Mark, etc. but possibly by the clarifying and editorial work done in later centuries, over a body of manuscripts available at the time and now lost.
It is true that the Lord's supper passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in the context of the Chruch being one body. It establishes indeed that the Sacrfiice of the Mass is necessarily a community-building sacrament, one that defines the body of the Catholic Church as it exists in the local parish. However it does so precisely because there is a sacrifice of Christ that is at the center of the sacrament. It "shows the death of Jesus", -- it is, therefore, a sacrament rather than a memorial meal. It then is scripturally without warrant to read the phrase "discerning the body" as referring to the body of the believers. The immediate context is death of Jesus; the immediate scriptural reference is the words of consecration, "this is my body", in the synoptic gospels, that St. Paul repeats. The "body" of 1 Cor. 11:29 is then that very body shown the disciples in the appearance of bread: Jesus's.
This passage is not fully understood unless the doctrine of the real presence is understood, most fully taught in John 6.
Nay, your affirmation that it is a community-building sacrament is consistent with the interpretation you deny, as you must, to replace it with one that is based upon supposing that “this” means “turned into” rather than “represents.”
However, as said before, the latter of which is what the immediate and larger context and allegorical use of eating/drinking most warrants, rather than having normally inquisitive apostles simply drinking blood, without a word of explanation for such a novel, radical miracle, and which they had to understand was such in order for it to be efficacious.
And in which believers sppdly receive life in them by literally eating and drinking a cup, which they must continually do, rather than the Scripturally proven means of believing the gospel and becoming born again before ever eating anything.
And which, unlike what RCs overall daily show by eating the wafer and drinking the cup, results in manifest change. And who live that life out as Jesus did, by the scriptures, (Mt. 4:4) which was Jesus example of how to live by eating him in Jn. 6:57, and the doing of which was His “bread.”(Jn. 4:34)
Rather than go one and explain this more, as has been done, it is obvious you cannot even consider any other explanation so i must leave you to Rome’s ritual and its developed doctrine.
Joint Declaration...
It was posted on Halloween, I believe.
the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition.
From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32. But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.
Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible
But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...
That seems self-contradictory, is it not? That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.
Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
Daniel: What magisterium?
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insistenting they are Scriptural
Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies. In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.
The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious
I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.
who needs to move.
No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.
was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values
On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?
if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?!
Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.
I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment
Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.
Alex: So then that finished product is inerrant...
By fiat? There is no objective evidence of that. It's a demand placed on the faithful by the Church since Trent.
Its inerrancy is, however, "as written" by that collective process, primarily by Sts Matthew, Mark, etc. but possibly by the clarifying and editorial work done in later centuries, over a body of manuscripts available at the time and now lost.
The only thing that was lost was the original understanding of things in Judaism, and their deliberate and forced mutation into something unrecognizable. Without radically changing the meaning of words, misquoting (even rewriting) the Old Testament, etc., Christianity would have no leg to stand on.
When I was originally faced with this prospect, I was appalled, even angry. But evidence is too compelling which is why it is so well filtered by the Church. When was the last time you had a rabbi give a sermon on how the Jews see the Passover Lamb and what the Christians innovated from it? Jews are considered perfidious (unbelieving) "apostates" and all their views are heretical (kettle calling the pot black) and labeled.
One way the Church obtained its 'inerrancy," Alex, is by paraphrasing what her adversaries were saying, but never actually showing what they had to say, be it Arius or Pelagius. It started with the Gospels and never stopped. All the whitings of the heretics were destroyed or should have been. Thankfully, not all were destroyed, so we can dispel the myth of "one" church, and one catholic faith from the get go. Unfortunately.
Mommah; are we gonna stomp some devil to-naaaght?
almost month-long thread
It was posted on Halloween, I believe.
Then it may be about time to try to wrap it up and give more attention to other threads and posters.
the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition.
From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.
We do, but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of them, and was a later development, refuted by Scripture and history, and the authority of said interpretation effectively rests upon itself; that her interpretation is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. This does not mean a church cannot speak infallible truth, but the formulaic assuredly infallibility of Rome is the issue.
But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.
God produced it, and the instruments of Divine revelation are to be subject it. God first revealed Himself to man, and confirmed the faith and holiness of those believed Him, and ensured it would be passed on and become written, and which became the standard by which later men and revelation would be tested by, but at no time did Scripture establish a perpetrated formulaic assuredly infallibility, but God preserved the faith amount a remnant by raising up and confirming certain men from outside those who sat in Moses seat.
As for product versus producer, the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews who consistent to your statement “produced” the “product” but were manifestly not infallible interpreters of it. Roman Catholic apologists do claim the infallible magisterium follows the Jewish magisterium. And the latter lost it due to disobedience to what was written, and God can raised children of Abraham from stones. (Mt. 3:9)
Scripture is the only objective authority which were are assured is 100% inspired of God and thus alone is assuredly infallible, and which Jesus reproved those who (were explicitly affirmed to have) sat in Moses seat by, as they supposed they could teach contrary to Scripture.
The RCC claim to producing the Scriptures relies upon her premise to be the New Testament church, the certainty of which claim is based upon her premise to infallibly interpret history, tradition and Scripture. In providing an “infallible” compilation of Scripture for herself, she could ratified a collection of what had been overall established as being such, but as said before, the majority of Holy Writ was recognized as being without an infallible magisterium.
In addition, Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned, with some dissent existing through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars as concerns certain books, such as Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin (among others) writes. While apparently what Trent ratified was not exactly the same canon a what was affirmed by such councils as Carthage and early lists which RCA sometimes assert where infallible.
Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible
But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.
The claim to the infallibly of the teaching of the Magisterium is not subject to establishment due to its qualities, and or that she is attested to being God's supreme infallible authority due to things like the ground opening up and swallowing all her opponents, but it rests upon her claim that whenever she has or ever will speak within a certain content and scope then she is infallible, making her decree to be infallible to be infallible. We can assent that Rome spoke infallible truth in the Nicene Creed, but not that did always did or always will whenever she speaks according to her formula.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...
That seems self-contradictory, is it not?
At any time a writing becomes established as Scripture, then it becomes the standard by which all is judged, and while Rome makes tradition equal to it, she effectively makes herself the supreme authority, yet she does not have an fallible list of all infallible teachings, or of all tradition, nor had she an assuredly infallible list of all books until 1546.
That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.
No, as said, Holy Writ becomes effectively established as being such like a true man of God does, by heavenly qualities and Divine attestation, which conforms and complements that which God had prior established by His power. Such is the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 4:20)
Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
Daniel: What magisterium? Most of the Bible was from the Jews, writings being established as Divine apart from an AIM, and even then a large portion came through prophets who reproved the official magisterium, and whose authority did not essentially rest upon hereditary formal conference as with the Levites, but by Divine attestation, and were subject to death for abusing their authority....
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).
This does not change the fact that again, while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it, while again, Rome's claim to be the 1st century church is based upon her premise that her interpretation of Scripture and history is infallible, and that formal decent confers authenticity.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture.
And it is, as it being the only objective authority which is wholly inspired by God, while it materially provides for the church. And while oral preaching could also be the word of God (and in the informal sense can be today in preaching its truths), yet examining it by the Scriptures is commended, and the Scriptures are abundantly used to examine and establish teaching and persons by. Yet the canon being closed, to hold any body of revelation to be equal with it is to essentially add to the canon, while again, no complete list of all tradition exists, or infallibly defined doctrine.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insisting they are Scriptural
Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies.
Actually, “non-Trinitarian communities of faith” such as the LDS, the WTS and fundamental SDAs, etc., typically manifest, like Rome, a reliance upon an authority, a person or office which effectively presumes supreme infallible interpretive authority, and often require implicit trust in them and sole allegiance to their particular org. The more they do such the more extreme they tend to be. In contrast, churches which manifest they rely upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and hold to shared core Truths which result in regeneration and interdenominational fellowship, have been foremost defenders of the core truths we both agree upon, and which were formalized in an earlier age with Scriptural validation. But due the their holding to supremacy of Scripture, these “Biblicists” likewise contend against teachings of those of Rome or cults which fail of Scriptural warrant.
In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.
Indeed they must be subject to Scripture as the supreme judge, being warranted and conformable to it, and thus the concurrence in shared core truths spoken of, while the aberrant tend toward elitism, and assume supremal authority over it by Divine authority, and require implicit submission, all of which they share with Rome.
I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).
It means only what Jesus personally said is authoritative. We see much evidence that writing revelation down was the norm, which is why we know the church was established by God, whose members affirmed this word was from God, and as it is, then it is the only objective source which is assuredly infallible, and does not support Rome's claim to perpetuated formulaic assuredly infallibility. God knows how to preserve the faith by raising up men to correct those who presume too much, as the Jewish magisterium did, and as Rome has done, but like the Jesus, she persecutes those who dare to do so.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.
Thus you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)? Thus rather than judging all by the Scriptures, you presume Rome is the supreme judge, promulgating teaching which need not be established by Scriptural warrant.
who needs to move?
No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.
This is rather imaginary. While Rome can define that “that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Bull promulgated on November 18, 1302) to even include Protestants (even if you may not), the refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.
was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values
On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?
This was not speaking of official statements, as conservative as they sound, but what is overall effectually conveyed and fostered, and in that case your assertions of overall greater support for moral values over her evangelical counterparts is a consistent myth, especially on birth control. And the and the granting of annulments and the breath of criteria for such fail of Scripture warrant, and potentially means multitudes of married Catholics never really were.
if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?!
Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.
Incredible. Even a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Eccl. 9:4) Besides that such would most likely mean a real Christian Kerry, you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren, “who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities.”
The latter term used in distinction to churches “in the proper sense,” such as Orthodox, though by Baptism they are incorporated in Christ and have a certain communion with Rome, albeit imperfect, with the Church. (Dominus Iesus)
Also answer clearly my previous question whether you favor a Roman Catholic monarchy in the US, and as you are a fan of the inquisition, what should they do with Protestants, and if the use of physical punishment of those who doctrinally disagree with Rome was right.
I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment
Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.
Which openly liberal politicians rarely see any real discipline, which conveys to other members that what is critical is that, despite all the promotion of Catholics about believing in works versus those sola fide types, what really matters is dying in the arms of Rome, versus a manifest conversion by faith resulting in works thereof, such as vast multitudes of conservative worshipful evangelicals (though i wish we all were more so) have realized through the centuries, after departing from Rome, but which you must oppose in loyalty to a particular church, which is sadly largely a dead lion.
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.