Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
It's right there; after the word 'faith'!!!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail M-ry!!! help the unbelievers detect it...)
No, I don't think we need "rely" on them. We can surely take their advice but to "rely" on them is foundation for error as we have seen many fall for. We know that Paul had to correct error in his day. We know that most of the "churches" by AD90 had allowed error to creep in and where warned by Christ.
>>My argument is that those canons themselves were derived from what the local churches had received as Scripture and were using.<<
Risky at best. As we see in Revelation, the "chances" of you being on the right track is only one in seven. That's only a 14% chance of being correct. There is no assurance that those second century "churches" or even the "church" leadership were correct as we know error and false teaching was already present in the first century. To invoke second century or later and "rely" on it without comparison to what the apostles taught is worthless for those seeking truth.
>>Here's the key: It was not theory. It was practice.<<
As we have seen in the message to the seven churches in Revelation, "practice" in even the churches of the later part of the first century was no assurance of correctness.
You argue for the inclusion of books that have proven errors. You want "inerrant" yet care not whether whether or not those books have errors within them. You invoke first century churches yet ignore that 86% of the churches even in the last part of the first century were rife with error. I for one am not impressed with your "arguments".
Paul commended the Bereans for "searching the scriptures daily" and said anyone who taught what they did not to be considered accursed. On those two counts alone the Catholic "arguement" is left wanting.
And what the followers of Rome PRACTICE does NOT line up with what it preaches!
The Bible you have came to you via a long, long, long chain of human provenance.
Where to start, where to start...
Tell me: is the OT in your Bible based on the Masoretic Text? Or some other. Please explain.
Not true. We didn’t throw out books of the Bible.
The scriptures I use came to me from God as He promised using any number of transmission points. The vehicles He used to preserve His word get no glory for His alone is the glory. The scriptures I use agree in whole as is expected of an infallible God.
>>Tell me: is the OT in your Bible based on the Masoretic Text?<<
The Old Testament scripture I use is God's word as He directed it to be written. It includes no errors or contradictions.
Where does the Bible tell you which Old Testament canon is the correct canon?
An infallible Authority outside of Scripture is required for an inerrant judgement regarding the canon of the Old Testament.
What is your infallible Authority?
R.C. Sproul recognized this unsolvable problem for Protestantism but came to the nonsensical conclusion that "the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books."
I’m talking about the transmission points. What were the transmission points of the Bible you use?
Regarding the Bible.....the Holy Spirit would have been the guide for which books to include. Not man.
We can be assured it's not the Catholic Church can't we.
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
So let's dispense forthwith any consideration of any discussion of Catholicism when considering what should be in the Old Testament. It's the Catholic Church that included the deuterocanonical books and considered them scripture and that against even the advice of many of their "church fathers". All Catholic influence as to what should be considered Old Testament scripture should be considered not relevant.
>>What is your infallible Authority?<<
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
And whom did the Holy Spirit tell which were the correct books to include? I want a name (or names), a time frame (even just a century for reference), and a place.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and John the elder for the New Testament and the writers of the protocanonical books.
We can without doubt eliminate the Catholic Church from getting any credit as to being counselled by the Holy Spirit since they included books with errors contained in them. The Holy Spirit would never have included error.
LOL, keep fighting the good fight, keep the faith. You know there is a crown of righteousness awaits us, but only for us twice born. Once born will not qualify.
Please answer my question. We’re talking about YOUR Bible, the one you read.
That is THE context I was thinking of too, even though I had to look in the dictionary, to get the definition of "salvifically" 😄 I had never heard that term before, but I agree with it. I was trying to explain to annalex, who, if I understand him correctly, thinks good works produces faith, rather than true faith producing good works. Catholics tend to get the cart before the horse. I believe James was addressing true Christians, and simply telling them that if someone professes to be saved, but never shows any change in their lives, there is a good chance they have no faith at all, but good works come from faith, not faith from good works. First, someone is saved by faith, then the good works follow. If none follow, then one has to question whether one has it at all. You told me once, that I understand cult speak meaning, when you are dealing with catholics, Mormons, JWs, INCs etc, you need to define every term you use. The words faith, baptism, Christian, born again, and other terms, mean something different to you and me, orthodox, Bible believing Chritians, than it does to a catholic or any other false religionist. I do not think James was telling any one of them that their faith was in vain, only that someone's life, who does not show any change, probably does not have faith to begin with, remembering to specifically define what "faith" is.
As said, works/holiness justifies one as being a believer, having saving faith, and fit to be rewarded, but in reaction against sola fide (which was a reaction against salvation by grace thru merit) Rome emphasized the role of merit by works even more, which is all men need to hear as that is what man most naturally want to believe, that in God's mercy they will enter Heaven because at least to some degree they are good enough, and earned it.
“In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned its own catholic tradition" — Jaroslav Pelikan [later fell into the EOs], "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism" (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, pp51-52).
Canon 32 of Trent states,
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32. Also see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed., Decree on Justification, Chapters V, VI, VII, X, XIV, XV, XVI) (emphasis mine)
Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."
Any theological distinctions that could present this as merit merely being Gods grace to believers for what God wrought thru them, and who really merit Hell, is effectively unknown, and what the typical RCs believes (i have experience) is that their good deeds vs. bad will gain them salvation, under and ambiguous idea of God' mercy in Christ.
Something like,
I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2
Absent is coming to the cross as contrite damned+destitute sinner, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His blood-expense and righteousness, which is just what Rm. 4 etc. teaches. Not justifying the Godly because they were made Godly, but justifying the unGodly by faith being counted for righteousness, which the only way one can be allowed into Heaven, while at the same time the believer is regenerated to live a holy life.
And whose works then testify that he is a believer, and fit to be rewarded, which God does in covenantal grace to souls who owe everything to God, and really deserve damnation. Thus the elders cast their crowns down:
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, (Revelation 4:10)
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Really? According to whom?
And who's going to infallibly interpret the infallible interpretation made by the infallible interpreters?
What is your infallible Authority?
The Holy Spirit who breathed out the Scripture that He is telling us the meaning of.
Who better to ask?
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.