Posted on 06/08/2018 8:54:57 AM PDT by Salvation
“Typically, many things work together in harmony; things are interrelated.”
Taken straight from progressivism.
“First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th century.”
This is an absurd statement that seems to suggest either blatant ignorance or something else.
The truth is, what he’s talking about in the 4th century was agreement by political authority. But the body of Christ knew what was Scripture and what was not Scripture from the beginning. Meaning from when it was written.
That’s a very good question bro. I am not sure, but all I can do, is tell you what I thought, when I was a catholic. I was a hostile, anti Christian. I thought those true Christians, were a bunch of Bible thumping fanatics.
Maybe it was pride, cuz I was sure I was in the one true church. I was incensed, that these “Bible thumping Christians,” as I called them, would have the audacity, to challenge my belief, that the Roman Catholic Church, was the one true church. I realize now, that the Roman Catholic Church preaches a gospel of faith and works, which, of course, is a false gospel, leading millions to Hell.
The day I left the “one true church,” was the best day of my life. I had finally found the truth of the Gospel of GRACE ALONE. It’s a beautiful thing. Everyone should try it. 😁🤣👍
I’ll ask a third time.....are you a Romam Catholic priest?
What does it matter to you?
Where in scripture do you find that baptism means water??? Or water means baptism, for that matter...
I guess we actually CAN govern ourselves. Maybe some RCs need their own VTPP (Vatican Thread Posting Police) to keep them in line. ;o)
I remember a few Roman Catholics on Free Republic in the past have mocked some of us as “Bible Thumpers”. Sounds like it may be part of a Catechism lesson. No doubt Jesus, the Apostles and early believers would have been accused of the same thing even back then. The Pharisees were outraged that Jesus quoted the Scriptures right back to them and they hated Him for saying they nullified the word of God for the sake of their traditions.
His entire house believed...Either the two week old baby believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior, OR, there wasn’t anyone there young enough who was incapable of believing...
***
It’s the former.
Even babies can understand need, and the need for someone else to provide what you can’t. Why else would they cry?
Just because they might not know the name doesn’t mean they can’t believe.
After all, faith is a gift from God, not an intellectual exercise.
I noticed how the conversation got so quickly turned from the discussion about theology to personal attacks on the character of others.
some people start in with the name calling and accusations when they can;’t or don’t want to answer something someone asked.
Just SOP, another day on the RF.
I looked down on actual Christians too.
I scorned them for claiming that they must think they are pretty special to be sure they are going to heaven, real goody-two shoes, but inside I was actually jealous that either someone was capable of living that good of a life, or that it was because they had a confidence that I did not but wanted.
Pretty much how I felt too.
Catholics do not and never have taught that we are saved by works.
Which denial is based upon the crafty deception that if one teaches salvation by works thru grace then it is not teaching salvation by works.
For Catholicism does teach that one is made actually, practically good enough to be with God by works, that of his own holiness of heart and character, either by attaining to that level in this life, as with "canonized saints," or (for most) though purifying punishments in RC Purgatory. Purgatory is based upon a false premise, that of the need for perfection of character (if by grace) in order to be with God, versus penitent faith which appropriates justification, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of. However, this saving justifying faith, is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus. The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25) If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4) But which progressive practical sanctification is not the cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our resistance to God and His light, and thus our disobedience. In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism, even without the required wholehearted repentant faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) However, since the carnal nature remains and few successfully attain to complete victory over any attachment to sin and perfection of character, then most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory.
What concerns us here is the detachment of faith from works that the phrase “faith alone” implies
Which is not what the reformers as Luther formally taught, while evangelical faith overall effects greater commitment and unity in core values than Catholicism , which fosters "easy-believism thrup faith in ones merit and the power of the church to save.
Hence it seems that faith alone is something of an abstraction. Faith is something that can only be separated from works in our minds.
As Luther taught, "it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt] But it is Scripture which juxtaposes faith and works, in teaching that it is the faith which produces works which appropriates justification. (Romans 3-6)
Solo 2: Grace alone (sola gratia) – By its very nature grace changes us. Again, show me grace apart from works. Grace without works is an abstraction.
And Reformers as Luther formally taught that grace is not apart from works, except that it the faith which produces works that appropriates justification. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification.
And if making such differentiation is wrong, then your priest has a problem with such texts which do so. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Solo 3: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) – Beware those who say, “sola Scriptura!” This is the claim that Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian, that there is no need for a Church and no authority in the Church, that there is only authority in the Scripture.
Which is simply a strawman, and is not what SS has historically meant. That Scripture alone is the sure standard for Truth is one part of what SS means, since it alone is the only wholly inspired substantive standard, and sufficient in its formal and material senses together.
Which thus means that SS affirms such things as reason to the light of nature, and including the magisterial office of the church.
Westminster Confession, Cp. VI: ...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: 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. hat “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same...
The early Christians could not possibly have lived by sola scriptura because the Scriptures were not even fully written in the earliest years.
SS does not claim to be operative before the last book was penned about 90AD, before the death of the last apostle, but which only affects the formal sufficiency aspect, not the sole supreme status of Scripture.
For as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus Scripture materially provides for both additional books as well as recognition of a canon of Scripture (such recognition had occurred by the time of Christ even if in a incomplete canon.
However, the key issue is the need for the wholly inspired word of God, and men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, which neither SS preachers nor pope claim to do. And since their words are what Catholics make equal with Scripture, they cannot be so, and do not replace wholly inspired words of men such as the apostles.
Second, until recently most people could not read.
This is not essential for SS, except as per the strawman your priest resorts to "here is no need for a Church and no authority in the Church"). SS preachers can and have preached to illiterate people without any conflict with SS, under the presupposition that like that of the apostles who words were tested for conflation with Scripture, (Acts 17:11) so also the veracity of their words is subject to testing by Scripture as the supreme authority.
Third, and most important, if all you have is a book, then that book needs to be interpreted accurately. ..Where is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Which is a mere question-begging assertion. Your priest invokes a text which has not been infallibly defined as meaning what he invokes it for, and in the Greek "church living God pillar and ground the truth" - and with pillar and ground both basically meaning "support" - does not teach that the Catholic church is The Source of Truth, and supreme authority on it.
Instead, we must interpret this in the light of the rest of Scripture, esp. Acts - Rev., in which we see that the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth. (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23 ) Prophetically and doctrinally, the NT church and its gospel (Rm. 1:1,2) actually was built upon established Scripture, to which the magisterial stewards of Scripture are subject to.
The Bible is a Church book and thus is not meant to be read apart from the Church that received the authority to publish it from God Himself. what is the basis for your assurance of truth?
Which assertion has as its basis the premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16) \
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
Which effectively invalidates the NT church, since the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The problem is, if no one is Pope then everyone is Pope! Protestant “soloists” claim that anyone, alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, can authentically interpret Scripture.
And Catholicism abounds with disagreements as to what their church teaches, to on what degree of assent is requires of them, and even as to whether the present pope is really pope, and or a heretic.Meanwhile Bible Christians testify to more unity is core beliefs.
However, contrary to the "if no one is Pope then everyone is Pope" assertion, a SS believer cannot claim any personal charism of veracity, as popes imagine their office has. Instead, the veracity of a SS apologist must rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Here is a brief video in which Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.sss
If invoking Scripture to support what one believes is what "authoritatively interpret" refers to, then that is what Catholics also do, interpreting Scripture to support their interpretation of Catholic teaching in debates, which at least at one time they were forbidden to do, though that is interpreted to no long apply.
Yet if "authoritatively" is meant in some sort of binding way, then this is wrong, for a Bible Christian in a fundamental evangelical church is more likely to be corrected by leadership for known errant teaching than lay Catholics are in their churches.
Therefore in conclusion, your priest is exposed as being either ignorant or a strawman sophist, and by posting this attack you have damaged whatever esteem among Bible Christians he may have obtained via articles which showed a grasp of grace and Truth.
Since for Catholicism Scripture is reduced to being a abused servant which is compelled to only support Catholicism, and can only mean what she says it does in any conflict, and that church doctrine is said to be supreme, then why expect anything less?
It won’t be the last time!
457-285 = 172 replies
And KARMA has produced the reply following yours here...
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.