Posted on 05/20/2011 5:24:45 PM PDT by bibletruth
Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching ministry of the HOLY SPIRIT...The GodHead...The WORD.
Through God, I am sanctified; I am justified; I have the promise of future glorification; I am a child of God; I am a son of God. My God teaches my soul correct Bible doctrines because the entire Godhead indwells my soul. I am are declared a son of God in Romans 8:14-15.
Believe me, I am not limping on this account. I am a Catholic and I feel delivered and rescued because I am one. I was only talking about the nature of the evidence and of the process whereby one decides. I think one always ends up appealing to something outside of Scripture alone.
Kosta playing devil's advocate? O.K.
The Catholic church is what you termed “the Church” so I think you should read their catechism wherein it says Jesus was “fully man and fully God”. Thus how would anyone distinguish in what nature he was speaking, whether human or divine or both?
Was he praying to himself?
But John 20:17 isn't the situation I was referring to, instead I was thinking of Rev. 3:12 where Jesus says,
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”
There seems to a theme here when “my God” is spoken four time in one verse.
Was Jesus speaking as a 100% human here or in his divinity? Or both?
“Don't forget, that same Gospel of John also quotes Jesus as saying he is “I AM”.
kosta, kosta. It was not so long ago that you, kosta, that you argued “I Am” was not the proper translation of John 8:58.
Do you remember?
I never said the New Jerusalem is not a physical place.
As offered to you earlier by Cronos, St. Paul clearly speaks of the Christ and His Church in a marriage relationship. Christ is called the bridegroom elsewhere, and the marriage supper was used by Jesus to describe heaven.
This is the problem with exegesis by verse, rather than by the whole of the Bible.
It is a both/and situation. On earth, Christ’s bride is the Church. That is where the marriage supper takes place. In heaven, it is in the New Jerusalem.
I would have thought that the shear embarrassment of being exposed for the false quantification espoused would have deterred the continued foolish statements. A "hobby-horse" is when one must constantly revert to a topic - even when proved wrong - and then 'ride' it for so long that it just seems like a childish game to others. Unless you are able to PROVE the ridiculous assertion with facts and not some nebulous "personally observed evidence", I'll continue to ignore it.
Oh, don't you wish! Iscool and I did not contradict each other as anyone can see who bothers to read the entire posts rather than a "snippet" of a post. When will it get through to y'all that your "magesterium" is no more reliable in interpreting Scripture than anyone else. Go back to the various councils and check how many voted unanimously on ANYTHING! Where Scripture is clear regarding doctrine, no real Christian denies it. And where Scripture is not so clear, it is obviously not essential to our salvation and should be understood within its context and how it relates to our walk as children of God.
“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. (THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH. A.D. 1647)
The phrase “good and necessary consequence” was used more commonly several centuries ago to express the idea which we would place today under the general heading of logic; that is, to reason validly by logical deduction or better, deductive reasoning, and which Rome engages in herself, as we do in interpreting content today.
Apostolic Tradition includes such points as against contraception
While you name contraception as an issue which requires Tradition, yet this position against it can be derived from the seminal command to “be fruitful, and multiply,” (Gn. 1:28) if one is married, and that being between opposite genders, as well as the sin of Onan. (Gn. 38:9) And in principle i am opposed to contraception ( at least for Christians), as is Rome, though some prevention of conception is sanctioned by her, if only by natural means. Yet statistically, even without an “infallible” magisterium, there is little difference between Catholics and Protestants as regards this use, and that of the general public as well, though it is one of the few areas in which Catholics are more conservative than evangelicals.
And yet the allowance of contraception is a new one, contraception was generally condemned as prior to the 20th century by all the major branches of Christianity, including the major reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin.
Yet, honestly, isn't even "sola scriptura" a tradition that "if its not in the Bible, we do not believe" -- a tradition...?
Indeed it is a tradition, especially as regards the spirit of it, but it is derived from a multiplicity of texts Scripture, showing revelation normatively being written and becoming the objective, transcendent authority for obedience and conformity of doctrine, and affirming means and methods of interpretation. As Westminster also states,
“Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word. John vi. 45; 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10, 12.
and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
Thus we see that SS, being the supreme authority for faith and morals, with its materially sufficiency, does not disallow other sources of complimentary revelation or exclude judgment, but sanctions such (Ps. 19:1-6; Acts 14:15-17; 17:25,28; Lk. 12:57; Rm. 2:14,15; 1Jn. 5:13) and includes a general interpretive hermeneutic, that being a Biblically-based “tradition.” Scripture also obviously sanctions the passing on of Scriptural understanding via men, a part of discipleship, but the key distinction is that all such must be subject to the only material source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, the Scriptures.
And as noted Professor of Theology (formerly of Oxford) Alister McGrath states,
“Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment.” ( The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism)
In contrast to this is the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, which presumes to be the supreme authority, and not simply where Scripture is “silent,” which is held to be infallible when speaking according to its infallibly defined formula, and is not subject to reproof. But while SS materially provides for the magisterium, it does not provide for Romes assured formulaic infallibility.
While the early church did teach infallibly, we know it did so because it is included in Scripture and its ruling was clearly Scriptural, but to conclude from this that whenever the church teaches on faith and morals as in Acts 15 that it will be infallible, is akin to saying that since holy men wrote Scripture then whenever such pick up the pen to write then will be inspired. Instead, what is revealed, as i have said, is that such writings because established as being from God due to their heavenly qualities and supernatural testimony in effects and miracles. “For the kingdom of God is in power, and not in word.” (simply men's say-so)
Rather than assurance of a perpetual infallible magisterium after the manner of Rome, or such being necessary, what shows us is reproof of those who presumed as much, and that God preserves His people without such, often by men He raised up to reprove those who sat in Moses seat but who presumed to teach as binding that which was not Scriptural.
Yet, where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? .
That is easily seen in such texts as Heb. 6:1,2; 1Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8,9; Rm. 14, in which the most essential truths are those which are necessary for conversion, dissent from which makes one a heretic, while differences on many less clear issues were not ruled on, and things such as whether or not one eats meat allows every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, if “love thy brother as thyself” in the fear of God was observed.
Moreover, Rome herself make this distinction between essential and secondary issues, requiring assent of faith to cardinal doctrines while allowing some dissent on other issues, though they are not always able to tell the difference.
In regards to this, while the matter of the material sufficiency of Scripture is not settled in Roman Catholicism, it does state that "Since therefore ALL that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (RCC. 107, emp. mine)
Yet this teaching is also a matter of theological dispute among Roman Catholic scholars, as regards whether “for the sake of our salvation” restricts infallibility to that realm versus the more historical position.
So on what basis do you have your claim to your interpretation on double predestination while the followers of Calvin have a different one?
My basis is my appeal to Scripture, as is theirs, while yours is to the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome. But despite what you suppose to prove by your incessant posting of differences between those who do in fact hold to SS (in which you include some who hold to Rome's model), the fact is that the authenticity of SS does not require that it preclude differences or produce 100% comprehensive doctrinal unity — which has never been achieved — but that holding that which is wholly inspired of God as supreme, is the only material methodical means to a Biblical unity, supplying the magisterium but not as a supreme entity over that which is God-breathed. And that conformity to Scripture and not holding men above that which is written is also the basis for warranted division. (1Cor. 11:19)
The fact is that if Scripture was not the supreme authority, and had not established the principle of progressive revelation and the manner by which the authenticity of the apostles was recognized, then you would not have a church after the New Testament manner. Moses was not a self-proclaimed authority, but was established due to Divine affirmation of his faith, which affirmed the faith of Abraham, and his (Moses) writings (not just the law) became the standard of obedience and conflation for future revelation. And in which, and what followed, we see how God established authority, including that of Scripture itself as being of God, and thus the apostles. And which is why the baptism of John was a problem for the Pharisees, as he did not have their ordination, yet he was manifestly of God.
The reality also is, that if the authenticity of Rome's claim for the infallibility of its magisterium rested upon Scripture and its means of establishment, then the former would be acknowledging the supremacy of the latter.
Is it not true that many times a practitioner of sola scriptura will say the Bible is "unclear" on something to allow for differing opinion and interpretations?
Yes, and the appeal of SE (sola ecclesia), is that it is seen to settle disputes, and produce unity, which it can, though the idea that Rome does not and cannot legitimately abound in different views, is erogenous. However, the real issue is the basis for its claimed veracity and the manner of unity it produces.
As concerns the former, conflation with Scripture may be claimed for Rome's infallible decrees, but they are held as infallible when addressing faith and morals, and spoken to the church universal in union with the pope, or by himself, though this does not necessarily render the arguments behind such to be infallible. But apart from a demonstrable warrant from that which is wholly inspired of God being required for their veracity, then they can effectively be autocratic, as it effectively presumes authority over both Scripture nor Tradition.
As regards unity, the unity claimed under the infallible magisterium (IM) of Rome requires implicit assent of faith, which is the very one that cults typically require, and which they usually effectually surpass. Thus Rome is one of many which claim to be the supreme interpreter of Scripture, etc., to the exclusion of all else, and which is effectively what Camping claimed, as only those who believe his instructions are saved.
While we are to esteem teachers based upon Scriptural warrant, the inordinate esteem of men and or another revelation as equal to Scripture is what is behind the most damnable heresies, including such things as denies that Jesus was always God, and which minority groups have long been rejected and contended against as heretical by evangelical Protestantism overall.
However, as substantiated before, those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture after its historic Protestant (and Scriptural) “tradition” (versus liberal revisionism) most universally hold to basic common core salvific truths, such as the Triune nature of God, the atonement and resurrection of Christ, of repentance from dead works and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ, that salvation is not merited on the basis of man's moral merit (though holiness is an attestation to saving faith), and of judgment and eternal life with God, as well as the supremacy of Scripture and sufficiency of Scripture, though views on the degree of formal sufficiency can see some variation.
In short, in distinction to cults, although they have no supreme central infallible authority of men, issues which denominations from the largest Protestant one (SBC) to the Assemblies of God and such have historically disagree on are not those which a sinner in the Bible needs to know to be saved. And which Rome can be seen to affirm in Lumen Gentium (though some Catholics interpreter her differently). And they show more unity in moral views than Catholics.
Let's just take the point of John 3:5...
You mention baptism, but very few reject that as a command, and Acts 10:43-47 makes it clear that conversion can come first, while in reality there is no real difference in confessing Jesus as Lord with one's tongue and doing so in the body language of baptism. It is a confessional-type faith that is counted for righteousness, even as Rome allows in baptism by desire, though there is internal disagreement about it.
And while one ca argue about Jn. 3:5, yet evangelical faith believes that a soul must be spiritually born again to be saved, and that this is by pure grace and coming to faith at the moment of conversion, not of merit. We can argue how and what precedes what in that moment, and how election and the atonement works, which have their importance, but the convicted soul who looks to God for mercy, and thus places all His faith in the risen Son of God to save him by His sinless shed blood (thus imputing Deity to Him), does not need know to about such. They are to believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation, be baptized in identification with Him, and follow Him. And rather than sprinkling infants and telling souls they became Christians through proxy faith (typically), evangelical type churches typically work to convict souls that they need to have a day of conversion, with repentance and faith preceding baptism. (Acts 2:38; 10:47)
This gospel truth with its manifestation of regeneration is why believers from a multiplicity of churches, and even a few Catholics (usually charismatics who came to faith, explained as “renewal”) often enjoy spontaneous “fellowship of the Spirit” despite their differences, the latter issue abounding in Catholicism as well.
In short, Biblical unity with God and His children begins with God-enabled heart faith in the truth and its resultant effects. How well the redeemed maintain that poverty of spirit and reliance upon God and obedience to revealed truth and grow therein much determines what quality of unity they will have with those who are of like heart, as well as what manner of division they must have with others. This is a test, but it is not one of implicit obedience to an infallible office.
In contrast, while Rome believes initial justification is by pure umerited grace, in practice it largely reduces it to a ritual, while after that it fosters confidence in one's own merit and the power of Rome to ultimately gain them eternal life. But which see a radical change when they come under conviction of their damned and destitute condition and to a personal faith in the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. As happened to me while still going to a Catholic church.
Jesus would have explained what He meant to His disciples and Nicodemus who would have explained it down to THEIR disciples and so on and so
It is a nice theory, but as you might know, there are many different “traditions,” from the triple immersion to images to instrumental music and more, with Rome picking which ones it will keep. Thus, as you were shown before, The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. The Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 135)
As concerns other things you mention SS types differ on, the issue of predestination is divisive due to the degree of interpretation, and as showed before, the infallible magisterium has not all solved this, except to a degree, and by allowing differing opinions in a civil manner, which is what we seek to do. The Dominicans and the Jesuits once used to attack each other over positions regarding reconciling the efficacy of grace with human freedom, not an easy issue. The pope did not solve it, but allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, and enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, as they were doing (without the Internet no less), and commanded them to await the final decision of the Apostolic See, which has never been reached.
In addition, as shown before, while your polemic is based upon the degree of unity effected under Rome's IM, yet the fact is that very little has been infallibly defined, with only about 3 to 7 declarations being commonly held as infallible, among potentially multitudes more, and without an infallible list, how many is a matter of varying interpretations. And as said before, some dissent is allowed in teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums.
And while the Catholic is not to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers, yet Rome does, and defines it as unanimous consent. Nor do the pronouncements of Rome disallow some interpretation of the interpreter. Such is life, and and thus it is held that “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic answers)
Rome may publish guidelines for interpretation, but even they are somewhat ambiguous, and RC liberal scholarship testifies to how far they can go.
In addition, Tradition is not an tangible source but is a nebulous one, with even defining it being a matter of interpretation. While you give a basic definition of Holy Tradition as being the teachings from the Ultimate Teacher through a succession of teachers, all lesser, the issue is how this content is conveyed and verified, and being oral, it must be judged by an authority which is wholly inspired, its source being of God, and manifesting a distinction from the vehicle of its transmission.
It's almost like Protestants except when there is division over what interpretation is proper Protestants divide up into new denominations and sects.
This is true, and yet among those born again, their essential unity is greater than their divisions, as due to their faith beginning with an encounter with Christ based on Scripture, and living that out, then they can rather easily go to different evangelical churches of like essential faith. Meanwhile, the fact that Catholics remain despite holding widely varying views testifies to a cause that is not doctrinal conformity, but is due to a faith that is based more upon a relationship with a church than a direct personal faith with a Scripture-based Jesus, and which system works more like ecclesiastical socialism.
And many many more.
And what Catholics do and can legitimately disagree on to varying degrees is far more than is assumed by most, while as evidence shows, Catholics disagree greatly even in things they are not supposed to. While the IM can be said to act as a supreme court, that does not ensure its infallibility, while effectually Rome does not effect much discipline or a superior unity
Paul made it clear when he says not to say "I am of Apollo, I am of Paul but of Christ" that the focus should be on the ultimate teacher of the teachers,...
While the focus of believers should be on Christ, Rome directs them to herself as the assuredly infallible interpreters of Tradition and Scripture however little, while the only objective source which we are assured is wholly of God is Scripture, and which provides for the magisterium, but the veracity of statements by the latter are dependance upon their conflation with the former, and its manner of confirmation.
All of which has been basically shown you before, and need not extended discourse again.
I think you misunderstood what I had said. The Church explains certain passages in terms of Jesus' believed divinity or humanity, which are of course not mixed or confused, but held to be uniquely present in one person.
No, just reiterating what the Church teaches. If you said "playing a lawyer" that would be okay.
The Catholic church is what you termed “the Church” so I think you should read their catechism wherein it says Jesus was “fully man and fully God”. Thus how would anyone distinguish in what nature he was speaking, whether human or divine or both?
The catechism is for simple folk. The basis for the Church teaching is in the Christology established by the first Ecumenical Councils, which say that Jesus' two natures, are inseparable, yet unconfused. Thus, Jesus' sayings are understood in terms of his humanity or his divinity, but never both.
Was he praying to himself?
In his humanity, as a man, he was praying to his God.
kosta, kosta. It was not so long ago that you, kosta, that you argued “I Am” was not the proper translation of John 8:58. Do you remember?
Sure. It's not a proper translation of Hebrew. It's a Greek Hellenized Johannine rendition of it intended to make Jesus divine. The historical context when "John" wrote his books (actually more than one author wrote them, because they are heavily interpolated), there was a need to elevate Jesus from a Jewish messiah to an eternal divine Platonic being.
The translation is not faulty by accident; it was done deliberately to achieve desired effect.
You continue to lack a real argument, and your lack of comprehension or reliance upon ad hominem remarks do not constitute one.
Excellent post! I am keeping it. Very well stated and documented. Thank you.
The burden of proof has shifted to you and so the 30,000 plus cults stand as offered.
Did you support Camping in this rapture and are you still so ashamed of your belief systems as to not share them with the rest of us?
Many good points, as usual.
Perhaps one has to use what’s in one’s quiver.
Messianic Judaism is the newest element and so many of the Orthodox look upon its adherents with suspicion. When contrasting it with evangelicals one see the same level of individual present in both. Water seeks its own level. What say you?
You have "provided" no such reference materials, only your priggish insistence that it's there for those who want it. I have said before I do not desire to carry on this type of conversation with you, but here you are, still goading at any and every chance. Did you like the hobby horse picture? I have more.
As for Camping, I have posted numerous times on several threads my thoughts on him. Some even with your own replies. Did you miss them? Perhaps an alter-ego has been using your screen name?
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.