Are you infallible?

It’s a question that requires little thought to answer; are you infallible? It ranks right up there with, “Are you God?” But to Catholic apologists the question is quite serious; that’s because they believe that there is a man on earth who, on the subject of faith and morals, is infallible; they call him, “holy father.” See, it does rank right up there with, “Are you God,” at least when coming from people who think their leader is equal with God on deciding issues of faith and morals.

According to Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, this question should cause Protestants to suddenly doubt everything they believe, and Catholics should take comfort in knowing they and only they, have an infallible leader here on earth. But how can they know? Is there one Catholic person out there, besides the pope of course, who will confess to being infallible? And if a Catholic is not infallible, how can he or she “know” their pope is infallible? They can’t! So if they cannot infallibly declare their pope to be infallible, then their assertion is nothing more than a fallible opinion. And if they are wrong, which my fallible counter-assertion says they are, then they are being deceived.

The logic that so often accompanies claims of papal infallibility goes something like this: “Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders.”

The logic used is quite revealing; it indicates very strongly that those who use it have no idea what it means to have the gift of the Holy Spirit, because if they had the gift of the Holy Spirit they would not be looking to Rome for infallible direction. It also reveals that they think everyone else is like them, wanting to follow the whims of their leaders. It also denies the notion that Christ has relationship with man through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their magisterium reserves that privilege for themselves and people buy into it. It’s no different than Mormons following their prophet in Utah.

The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Apostle Paul explicitly said that Christ is the head of His Church and He reconciles all things to Himself. To wit, Catholics will be quick to agree that Christ is the head, but then immediately contradict themselves by saying, “but He established the papacy through which He reveals His truths .” Based on what? If Christ is the head and we are the body, where does the papacy fit in? I see no evidence of this claim in Scripture or history, so if the evidence is not there the papacy must belong to a different body; one that is not associated with Christ and His church.

In his newsletter on his website where he shares chapter one of his new book, “Blue Collar Apologetics,” John Martignoni instructs his faithful followers to establish the fact that Protestants are not infallible early on in discussions with them. The purpose of doing this is to attempt to convince the Protestant that he could be wrong about what he believes. The funny thing is Martignoni never tells his readers what to do if the Protestant turns the question back on them; and that is most certainly what is likely to happen.

Does Martignoni really not see this coming, or is he simply at a loss for how to address it? Once a Catholic apologist is faced with admitting their own fallibility, they will immediately be forced to deal with the realization that their claim of papal infallibility is itself a fallible opinion; so they must, therefore, admit that they could be wrong as well. And once they realize the playing field is level, the evidence will do the talking.

A Catholic apologist who is willing to concede that his belief regarding papal infallibility is nothing more than a fallible opinion will likely ask another similar question, “What church do you belong to and how old is it?” In their minds this is the true “gotcha” question. They believe, in their fallible opinions of course, that they belong to the church founded by Christ nearly 2000 years ago. But the fact is, and yes it is a fact, there was no Roman Catholic Church 2000 years ago; it took a few hundred years for that to develop. Furthermore, by their own admission, the doctrines they hold equal in authority to the Bible, which they call “sacred traditions,” did not exist at the time of the apostles; that also is a fact.

There is something, however, that is clearly older than any Protestant or Roman Catholic Church and that is the written books of the Bible. If a person bases his or her faith on these written works then no supposed authority that came later can undermine the power of God working through them. It is unfortunate that when a person comes to Christ in faith through reading the Bible, that there are so-called Christians who come along to cast doubt in their minds. For example, in a tract on the Catholic Answers website called, “By What Authority,” it is stated, “In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers.”

Not according to the Apostle John who explicitly wrote, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”? He did not say these are written because you believe; he said, these are written that you may believe. John’s gospel is a firsthand written testimony of the ministry of Jesus for the purpose of bringing people to Him, and Catholic apologists are telling us it was never John’s intention for us to become believers by reading it? Amazing; isn’t it? The Catholic Answers philosophy seems to be to make up facts rather than face them.

So for the sake of the next John Martignoni disciple who wants to ask me if I am infallible, the answer is no; and incidentally your answer to my identical question is also no. Thus I am not interested in your fallible opinion that your pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals. Perhaps one of you can go tell Mr. Martignoni that chapter his one is incomplete, and that he might want to consider adding a realistic response to his question rather than a bunch of scenarios where the Protestant is simply dumbfounded. His current scenarios might have been fun for him to write, but they are only going to embarrass his readers when they go out armed with the Martignoni sword.

SR: We don't think [good works] are optional either.

PL: Here's the problem: when you say "we", you'd have a very hard time speaking for all the various non-Catholics on this forum... since, on this topic (and almost all others related to Christian theology), they're all over the map!

Not really. I know you think they are all over the map. But Sola Fide is in the evangelical dna. You can credit it to the preeminence we give to Scripture, in conjunction with the work of God's Spirit, or however else you'd like to account for it. But I have been among evangelicals of nearly all stripes for over half a century, and I can tell you with some confidence that what I am relating to you is the typical evangelical view of the relationship between faith and works. You can choose to disbelieve that if you wish. But I suggest you study our confessions on the matter. You may be surprised at the unity you find. In our dna. Just sayin ...

Beyond this, I think you'd have a chore on your hands, trying to prove your point--especially given St. James's claim that "we are justified by works" (2:24). Had St. James said that "we are justified by faith which necessarily produces good works", then you'd have a case; but unless you want to claim that James 2:24 is flat-out wrong, you're faced with the Biblical claim that good works have a SUBSTANTIAL ROLE in JUSTIFICATION (and not just as an after-the-fact "diagnostic" of justification). You'd also have to deal with the fact that, in EVERY apocalyptic representation of the "final judgment", we are said to be judged by OUR WORKS; Revelation simply doesn't say that "those with saving faith are in the Book of Life"--rather, it says that "the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done." (Revelation 20:12). Do a word-search on the words "works", "deeds" and "done" in the Book of Revelation, and the results (for a "sola fide" person, especially) could be eye-popping; Jesus' comments to the seven local Churches are positively RIDDLED with them.

Do you see my point?

First, your problem with James is that he pretty much does make my case, right here:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
(James 2:17-18)

Remember we said earlier that faith doesn't come to the party alone. There will always be works resulting from genuine faith. So we're still on the same page up to that point. But look what James says next. He rebukes the man who says he has faith, but whose life does not show it. How? By declaring that faith is manifested through good works! Just as you yourself said earlier. This is truly the evangelical perspective, and I am sorry I am having such a hard time helping you see this.

Perhaps this way. As a matter of logic, I am certain you recognize the distinction between causation and concurrence. James here does not say you must have works as a cause of redemption. Check the language. That statement isn't in James. I know, because as a young person I once memorized every verse of James. Not anymore of course. But look at it. That's not the language. Rather, he is saying the person who has faith will have works. He does not say that works demonstrate their own redemptive value, or that they have a cross-dependence on faith, where they are co-equal partners in causing redemption. But only that they demonstrate the presence of true faith.

At this point I would expect the objection, what about the crystal clear statement of James 2:24? Fair enough. Let's look at that:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(James 2:21-24)

Here's the interesting thing about that. What Scripture does both Paul and James use to make their respective cases? This one:

And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
(Genesis 15:3-6)

But look back at James. When did James see this justification taking place? When Abraham acted on his faith in offering Isaac. But when did the accounting of his faith as righteousness take place according to Genesis? Before Isaac was ever born, all the way back to when he believed the promise of God, and had no act to offer at that time. Now bear with me a little more, and look at Paul's use of that incident:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(Romans 4:1-5)

Now we know that one Holy Spirit inspired the whole of Scripture, so we know there cannot be a true contradiction. James and Paul and Moses must all agree, when rightly understood. Yet it does superficially look as though Paul wishes to exclude works from justification, and James wishes us to see them as related.

I know the solution typically offered by those wishing to retain works as a condition of salvation, which is to say that Paul is only excluding the works of the Mosaic law. But that shortchanges one of Paul's main arguments in Romans, that Jew and Gentile alike are under conviction of sin under the universal law of God, whether expressed through Moses, or the natural law. So that argument is unpersuasive. Paul is setting up a major theme of contrast between faith and human efforts as a means of obtaining righteousness, and he is doing this to explain grace. We cannot break that theme in order to avoid the apparent conflict with James.

But there is another solution which both grants Paul his thematic contrast between faith and works, and still allows James to say what he does in 2:24. The key is that the word "justify" (δικαιόω, "dikaioō") has a fair semantic range. It doesn't always mean forensic justification of the sinner, as in acquittal from the guilt and penalty of sin. That's what it generally means in Romans, which is why Paul can speak of a separation between faith and works in that context. Justification in Paul is the judicial act of God in response to our faith, and according to Paul, that judicial act comes to us at the same point it came to Abraham, when we believe God, and is therefore, in that sense, apart from works.

But the same exact word also has the sense of public vindication of something that was already true. For example:

This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
(Luke 7:27-29)

Now, the people hearing John's message are not justifying God in any forensic sense. That would be blasphemy, to say God had to be acquitted of some sin. Rather, it is a more basic sense, agreeing with God that He is right about something, or right to do something, or worthy of praise, etc. In other words, it fits perfectly with James' use of the term in chapter 2, because with James it does indeed have that "diagnostic sense," as you put it, of showing true faith, not causing redemption. And in James it comes in, not at the moment of belief, but later, when some overt action is set forth to demonstrate that true faith. So here justification is NOT forensic, but illustrative. It doesn't vacate the penalty of sin; it vindicates that sinner as one who has true faith.

Very telling in this regard is his immediate resort to showing one of the most striking examples of "dead faith" in all of Scripture:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
(James 2:19)

What good does it do to believe there is one God? Even the devils believe that, yet their intellectual assent to the truth cannot save them. They remain devils. But as Paul shows in Romans, Abraham had a living faith, much more than an assent to some list of facts, but a full heart trust in God that was real, and God counted it for righteousness. It was by his faith Abraham was justified. The justification needed no other good work. But good works resulted from it.

And so the apparent contradiction is resolved. Paul keeps his forensic justification under pure grace, and James gives us a diagnostic for distinguishing true faith from false.

Peace,

SR

Sometimes it's hard to recognize the significance of something when it's happening, but I now know on reflection if I had had that money that night, my whole life might have turned out a lot worse.

A long time ago where was a certain farmer who had a beautiful white horse whom the neighbors marveled at. But one day the horse ran away. His neighbors gathered together upon hearing the news and sympathetically said to the farmer, “That’s too bad.”

But the farmer simply replied.“Lets see,”

About a week later the horse returned on his own and brought seven wild stallions with it. The neighbors then exclaimed. “Look how many more horses you have now,” “What a good thing!”

But the farmer simply replied.“Lets see,”

The next day, the farmer’s son attempted to ride one of the wild horses, but was thrown off and broke his leg. Then the neighbors said, “That's too bad”

But the farmer simply replied.“Lets see,”

The next week, war broke out and military officers soon came to town to conscript young men into the service, including the farmer's son. But after they saw the son’s broken leg, they rejected him. Then the neighbors gathered round the farmer to tell him how fortunate he was.

But the farmer simply replied.“Lets see”...

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33)

This story does not mean such things as the 7 wild horses showing up was not a blessing, and that we are not to rejoice at such, but that God makes everything work for good for those who love Him, especially for our soul. Even though we may not be able to imagine how, yet we can thank God in all things because He is able willing and faithful to makes all things work out for good if and as we surrender and obey Him.

That the Lord will be exalted and glorified and justified in all that He does should be our only ultimate concern, and source of our joy. .

James is differentiating between saving faith and intellectual assent.

James is saying that we are justified by works. He said it; I didn't. I don't think any amount of "spin" or rationalization will make that go away. St. James had every freedom to write "we are justified by saving faith, which will produce works as evidence"... but he didn't write that, and the Holy Spirit approved it as Scripture. Sorry, ma'am... that horse won't run, as they say.

Intellectual assent doesn't save anyone.

Of course not. That's why "believe", when used in the Bible re: salvation and justification, is "pregnant" with meaning. It's not just "praying the sinner's prayer, and *bam*... all is done, permanently; "believing" is a full, ongling commitment of one's LIFE. Good works are part and parcel of that.

Faith, trust, does, and it produces works.

It also needs to be nurtured and maintained (by conscious choices to grow in holiness, to turn away ever more from sin, etc.), or it will die.

Providentially enough, here's the Gospel from today's Mass: (John 15:1-8)

Jesus said to his disciples:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.
He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit,

[note: the Father can "take away" a branch--i.e. one of us believers--even if that branch is "IN HIM"; this isn't describing an unbeliever. Beliecvers who do not bear fruit will be removed.]

and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit.
You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.
Remain in me, as I remain in you.

[Why would Jesus urge a believer to REMAIN in Him? To "remain" in Him, they first have to BE in Him, yes? So what does this mean, re: the Protestant idea of "once saved, always saved"? It completely refutes it, apparently... or else Jesus would be absurdly warning His disciples against an impossibility: akin to saying, "Don't you dare create any squar circles, lest you die!" Given the choice between thinking that Jesus has "lost it", and thinking that the "once saved, always saved" proponents are dead wrong, I'll always choose the latter.]

Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.

[Remaining in Christ is a free choice, and refusing (or neglecting) to remain in Him leads to us failing to bear fruit... which has bad consequences for teh believer who does that.]

I am the vine, you are the branches.
Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit,
because without me you can do nothing.
Anyone who does not remain in me
will be thrown out like a branch and wither;
people will gather them and throw them into a fire
and they will be burned.

[This doesn't sound like Heaven, to me; rather, it sounds like hell and eternal damnation. Those who WERE "in Him", but who do not REMAIN in Him and produce fruit, will be thrown out, gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. This is serious.]

If you remain in me and my words remain in you,

[Again: note the "IF"? It is no "automatic guarantee"--we have to REMAIN in Him, and we have to let His Word REMAIN in us, on pain of being thrown into the fire. This is Jesus talking, not me!]

ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.
By this is my Father glorified,
that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.”

[A believer need not be a true disciple; one can be a mere "hearer"--and even a believer--of the Word, and deceive Himself, as St. James warns (James 1:22ff). If we are not "doers that act" (James 1:25), we deceive ourselves, and the consequences are grave... as described by Our Lord, above.]

Way back in comment #182, you had the following exchange with FatherofFive:

[FatherofFive]
Christ established His Church. One, not many.

[CynicalBear]
How many "churches" did Jesus have John write to in Revelation?

[FatherofFive]
Great question. There is a Catholic Church in New York. There is a Catholic Church in Boston. There is a Catholic Church in San Diego. And on and on. Many Churches. One Church. All these Churches are one. One Body. One spirit. There is no question on what the meaning of what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[CynicalBear]
That doesn’t work FatherofFive. Each was a separate entity with a separate “candlestick”. No ties to any of the others. Jesus didn’t address one entity and tell that entity to correct it’s subordinates.

Now, since you didn't clarify why you asked your first "how many churches" question, I was forced to assume that it had something to do with your subsequent statement--i.e. that those Churches were somehow "separate", with "no ties to any of the others". But then you have the following exchange with me:

[paladinan]
Perhaps you might explain why Jesus referred to "building His Church" in the *singular* (ekklesia), not in the plural (ekklesiai)? Or are you suggesting that only one of the seven local Churches (we call them "dioceses"... or "bishoprics", if you're British) had the promise never to have the gates of Hades prevail against it? [...]

[CynicalBear]
Only those called by God, born from above, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit are part of the ekklesia of Christ. It includes all of those "called out" throughout history. That is the invisible ekklesia as only God knows who they all are.

[By the way: you never explained clearly how you came to these conclusions via "sola Scriptura"; you simply threw a few Bible verses, and left the matter, without explaining how you thought those verses proved your point. Ironically enough, I agree with the definitions you gave, so far as they go... though I agree for what I think are very different REASONS than you might give.]

The local "assemblies" are members of the universal ekklesia and are the visible part of that ekklesia.

[Again: I agree... but this is shaping up to be an interesting problem. More, in a moment.]

Christ is the head of that ekklesia and present with them when meeting with as few as two or three.

[Definitely.]

There is no single earthly organized hierarchical structure such as the Catholic Church would have you believe.

There's where your position crashes to the ground. Not only is this last sentence obviously your mere raw opinion, but it doesn't logically follow from anything you said in the previous sentences (all of which were quite accurate, in and of themselves).

Certainly, the Church has both visible and invisible aspects. Certainly, all who are "called out", who are "born from above" (i.e. by Baptism, through water and Spirit), and who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (though none of the Scriptures you cited made any reference to this, at all) are members of that Church. Absolutely: where two or three believers gather in His Name, He is there in the midst fo them. So... how does this lead you to the novel idea that "therefore, the universal Church cannot possibly be visible, and cannot possibly have a unified and central authority on earth"? Nothing in your premises leads to that conclusion; the conclusion is "super-glued" to the end, artificially.

[paladinan]
If you're claiming that "any old visible Church is good enough, if taking an unrepentant sinner to them", then that logically requires unanimity between the Churches... or else the command of Jesus would be nonsense ("if your brother sins"--how so, if the 7 Churches have 7 different ideas of what constitutes a "sin"?).

[CynicalBear]
No, it doesn't. It's the local assembly they were to take it to.

...which still leaves one of three options: either (1) the Churches were somehow unanimous in their views (i.e. they all appealed to the same teaching, the same authority, etc., without significant division--and Revelation shows that this is plainly NOT the case), or (2) Jesus didn't really care whether an individual Church mismanaged and/or falsely accused someone of being an "unrepentant sinner", so long as they brought the sinner to "a local" Church and followed the procedures anyway, or (3) Jesus was referring to something more than "bring the sinner to a local Church, detached in authority and doctrine from the others, with no way to settle doctrinal differences between them definitively". I'll go with "(3)", personally.

Case in point: is it sinful to neglect to worship as a community on Saturday, rather than on Sunday? The Seventh Day Adventists think so; Evangelicals don't. Both appeal to the "Bible alone". (They even use your 66-book fragment of the Bible, and not the full 73-book Catholic Bible!) Both appeal to Scripture to bolster their reasons. Scripture is incapable of deciding between them in any definitive way; both sides are forced to call the other side "unbiblical, heretical, not-Spirit-led, stupid, ignorant of the Scriptures, eisegetes, etc.", and walk away claiming that THEY (and not the other side) are "truly Biblical" and "truly follow what the Bible ACTUALLY says". In other words: it's a train-wreck... and your comment seems to suggest that the "universal Church", to Whom we're to bring unrepentant sinners, could somehow have "Seven disparate [Protestant-esque] local Churches", and still avoid such a train-wreck. I don't think so.

[paladinan]
And how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion (aside from personal taste and raw personal opinion) that he's teaching "another Gospel from what the apostles taught"?

[CynicalBear]
Many ways but one easy one would be the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.

...and are you saying this because you believe the contents of "the Gospel" are limited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

[CynicalBear]
Those that purport to lord over the people are called nicolaitans and God hates that.

[paladinan]
O-kayyyyy. So... tell me, please, where in Scripture you find THIS tidbit? Where does Scripture say that "those that purport to lord over the people are called nicolaitans"? I see the word "Nicolaitans" only twice in the Bible (Revelation 2:6 and 2:15), and it's left undefined in both cases.

[CynicalBear]
It's just a matter of searching the Greek. Greek - “Nico,” in Greek, is “to rule over or conquer,” and “lait” is “the common people,” the laity. Jesus Himself said it was not to be so with His assembly.

Oh, my word... :)

FRiend, I admire your ingenuity and resourcefulness... but: are you aware of the fact that you have NO EVIDENCE (aside from the equivalent of an etymological "pun") to suggest that the "Nicolaitans" of Revelation refer to "anyone and everyone who has ever ruled and/or conquered any people, anywhere"? First, are you aware of the fact that "Nico-" can also be translated "victory", and it's not always referring to "oppression"? (I don't suggest that the real Nicolaitans of Revelation were nice people, or anything... which is made plain by the fact that Jesus condemned them); but you have no idea whether the Revelation "Nicolaitans" were named that because of their cruelty, or because they were named after a LEADER of similar name (Sts. Irenaeus and Hippolytus write that these people are followers of "Nicolas of Antioch"), or whatever other reason might have led to it; your comment is simply a wild guess, and nothing more. Second: this idea would lead to far too many absurdities to count (e.g. King David, who conquered and ruled many cities and peoples, including Jerusalem, would be a "hated Nicolaitan"; as would Moses, who conquered Sihon and Og and their people/lands, etc. Second, by that same argument, since "Nico-" - "oppress" (by your choice of definition), and "demos" means "the people", every last Nicolaitan would have to have the personal name of "Nicodemus"! Lo, and behold... Jesus hates the fellow from the 3rd Chapter of John! :)

Do you see my point? And by the way: you're interpreting Scripture, left and right, here. Just saying. :)

Not some hierarchical man made organization.

The Catholic Church is not made by men; if it had been, it would never have endured 2000 years of attacks from within and without. Napoleon Bonaparte once boasted that he would destroy the Catholic Church; when a Catholic cardinal of France heard this, he laughed and said, "He will not succeed. We have not succeeded in destroying it, ourselves!"

I only have a moment; I’ll try to write more when I have more time... but just a quick question:

The word which my translation rendered “lacking”, you render “behind”; but the Greek word is “husterEmata”, which means “deficiency”, even according to Strong’s Protestant etymological analysis. Compare it with the following occurrences of the same word in the NT, and see if “behind” or “deficient” is more accurate:

Luke 21:4
2 Corinthians 8:14, 9:12, 11:9
1 Thessalonians 3:10
1 Corinthians 16:17

As I recall, I did not contest that ὑστερήματα (husteremata) was a lack or deficiency. The question is how Paul is using this comparison, this gap between something and something. Is he saying Christ's redemptive act was lacking in any way? I don't think so, else he would not have just told them back in verse 21 that they had been reconciled, past tense, by the death of Christ. An incomplete redemptive act of Christ is not in view here.

But if the act of redemption is complete, then what is incomplete? As I stated before, possibly this is Paul saying his own affliction on behalf of the Colossians begins to close the gap a little with Christ's much greater trial. In which case the deficiency is Paul's as compared to Christ's, which I believe would be allowed by the genitive used here, and that is possibly why the KJV uses "behind."

Alternatively, we can say that the affliction of any believer is felt personally and directly by Christ Himself, as we are in Him and He is in us, and in that sense, the persecution of believers for preaching the Gospel is concrete affliction to Christ, and will not be complete till Christ returns. By this understanding, Paul would here be claiming to be making his own "fair share" contribution to that lack, not as though anything lacks in Christ Himself, but in the afflictions ordained to be experienced by His body while we live on this hostile planet until He returns.

I found this helpful amplification of the Greek in the Meyer NT Commentary:

"I am in the course of furnishing the complete fulfilment of what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of affliction with Christ" (derived from Col 1:24)

In which case it is Paul's view of fellowship with Christ that defines the gap, not any deficiency in what Christ has done, which I'm sure if Paul heard it he would reject with a hearty "God forbid!"

Also: redemptive suffering does not expiate sin; rather, it calls down graces by which the person in question can more perfectly cooperate with the expiation of Christ’s redeeming death on the cross.

Inasmuch as "redemptive suffering" appears to have been invented out of whole cloth anyway, I am not surprised it can be called redemptive without actually being redemptive. Invented things are like that. Very malleable. :)

Peace,

SR

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.