Thursday, August 19, 2010

Defining Perspicuity

In light of a recent discussion with Matthew Bellisario, here is Frame on the perspicuity of Scripture:

29. The Clarity of Scripture

Discussions of Scripture in Reformed theology have often included reflection on certain "attributes" of Scripture, particularly necessity, authority, clarity (or "perspicuity"), and sufficiency....

It is therefore the doctrine of biblical clarity that will occupy our attention in this chapter. The Westminster Confession of Faith formulates this doctrine as follows at 1.7:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

This is a carefully nuanced statement, with important qualifications. It is directed against the attempts in the Roman Catholic Church of the time to keep the laity from studying Scripture on their own. The Roman Church feared that if laymen were to interpret Scripture for themselves, they would come up with unorthodox, even bizarre interpretations of it. That fear, as we can now observe, was not groundless.

However, Scripture itself (as in Deut. 8:3; Ps. 19:7; 119; Matt. 4:4) says that God’s written word is for everybody. We live by it. The Confession, of course, agrees. Nevertheless, the Confession’s statement does not encourage autonomous or lawless Bible study. It does not make every layman an expert in Scripture. It recognizes that not every part of Scripture is equally clear to everybody. Laymen, indeed all Christians, need to watch their step in studying the Bible. There are mysteries in Scripture beyond anyone’s understanding, and there are many things in Scripture that we cannot understand without more knowledge of the languages of Scripture and its cultural background.

So, the Confession also says that those who would study Scripture should be humble enough to seek help. The kind of Bible study it recommends is not individualistic. One should make "due use of the ordinary means." Those ordinary means include the church’s preaching and teaching. That teaching is not, however, as in the Roman church, an inflexible set of conclusions with which all Bible students must agree. Rather, it seeks to guide believers into paths by which we can progress in our knowledge of God, even beyond the levels attained by our teachers.

Prayer and the Holy Spirit are also means available to every Christian in Bible study. Involvement with God himself, the author of Scripture, draws us toward a greater understanding of the truth. So our understanding of Scripture is not directly proportional to the amount of education we have. It is for "not only the learned, but the unlearned."

A further qualification is that this level of clarity does not apply to everything in Scripture. It pertains to "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation." Now in this book, I have opposed distinctions between "matters of salvation" and "matters of cosmology, history, and science" in several contexts. In Chapter 24, 25, and 27 I have opposed the idea that Scripture’s purpose is redemptive in a narrow sense, so that it is not authoritative on other matters, and I will make similar points in regard to the Comprehensiveness and Sufficiency of Scripture. I do not think that Scripture’s purpose can be defined that narrowly, and, given the nature of salvation in Scripture, I don’t think it is possible to draw a sharp line in Scripture between "matters of salvation" and other matters.

Nevertheless, there is a legitimate distinction to be drawn within Scripture between what a person is required to know for salvation and what he is not. Nobody would claim, for example, that a person will go to Hell if he does not understand the difference between guilt offerings and trespass offerings in Leviticus. These are certainly "matters of salvation," but they are not matters one must know in order to be saved. So the Confession is not making the sort of distinction I have been opposing. I would say that everything in Scripture is a "matter of salvation," i.e. significantly related to salvation. But a person can be saved even if he does not know or understand some things in the Bible. The clarity of Scripture pertains to those fundamentals that constitute a credible profession of Christ.


(Source.)

135 comments:

Matthew Bellisario said...

Ok. So who defines what is necessary to believe in Scripture? What authority tells the believer what doctrines are clearly presented in Scripture and what is not? Is there a list of necessary things to believe? Is there a list telliing the believer what is not clear and if there are those who are better equipped to understand Scripture better than other, who determines who is better equipped to do so? Why is the WCF accpeted only by some of the Protestant flavor, and where does its authroity come from? Why would anyone accpet what it says as being authoritative?

Matthew Bellisario said...

For example. Is Baptism necessary for salvation according to Scripture? Is the teaching on Baptism part of the clear teaching, or is it an obscure part of Scripture? Who determines such?

natamllc said...

Matthew,

assuming you care to know, your reasoning, from a Biblical view, goes something like the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. In this instance, my comments to you now, consider yourself the "Nicodemus" in the verses:

Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?"
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?


Are you not starting from the wrong presupposition?

After all, Jesus did say "no one" comes to the Father but by Him!

Your words seem to make the assumption that the words of men and their authority is where you are to begin the debate?

Your inquiry, it seems to me, leaves God completely out of the picture. And I assume you wholeheartedly believe God Himself, Our God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Holy Spirit, are infallible?

Matthew Bellisario said...

We all agree that Scripture is God's written Word. I am asking a simple question. Who determines what is necessary to believe in Scripture and that is not? Who determines what are the clear arts and what are the obscure parts.

Also, I have pretty good idea of how the OT and NT canons of Scripture came together and how it was determined.

Matthew Bellisario said...

For example, it seems that John 3:3-5 is clearly referring to baptism. Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Do you agree that this passage refers to baptism, and that baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation? If not, why not, and if so, why?

Jae said...

If I'm a true believer of the Sola Scriptura principle I would not have believed this WCF statement of doctrines.....being consistent and following the same logical sequence, IS there any reason whatsoever why a mormon's statement of doctrines be not taken as WCF's standing? or Jehovah's statement of doctrine as WCF's?

Give at least ONE GOOD reason outside one's own presupposition and conceived ideas... be objective.

If one scrutinize the WFC statements one could easily find lots of inconsistencies (I'm not pertaining to Biblical exegesis) but just for plain english contradiction of terminology and statements, viz:

WFC:“faith is not alone in the person justified, but is always ACCOMPANIED by all the other saving graces” (good works supposed to be the produce of faith)

_Accompany in dictionary means: To ADD or PUT TOGETHER.

Reformed: “Reformed position stated that works/obedience are a NECESSARY part of the Justification formula.”

_Necessary means: indispensable, requisite, requirement - So, in other words, if they are NECESSARY, then it is impossible to be saved without them because that is what "necessary" means! If you are going to say that works are necessary for your salvation, then obviously it has a BEARING on your SALVATION, by definition.

A lot more if one keeps an "open" eye.

WFC said, "This is a carefully nuanced statement, with important qualifications. It is directed against the attempts in the Roman Catholic Church of the time to keep the laity from studying Scripture on their own. The Roman Church feared that if laymen were to interpret Scripture for themselves, they would come up with unorthodox, even bizarre interpretations of it. That fear, as we can now observe, was not groundless."

Oh by the way the Catholic Church didn't prohibit laymen to read the Bible in their "time". So what's the reason why in the Middle ages Catholic Bibles were "chained" in the altars.. (please, if you read the true story and not from some dubious websites).

And lastly I agree with WFC's last sentence but morever, the prophecy of Scripture is not the business of laymen (though one is encouraged actually the Church decreed her laymen to read)....just look at Nestorius, Arius, Manichaeans, Donatist and more spanning the entire history of the Universal (Catholic)Church's existence to the present.... that is why the Church's Ecumenical Councils were formed and convened from the first century to the present to fight these kinds of heresies (errors)Read Early Church's chronological history.

Then protestant's pick and choose strategy on which Ecumenical Councils "contained" orthodoxy without basis but just their preconceived idea that suits them and to make us believe that after their cut-off date of around 500 A.D. went into error abandoned by the Holy Spirit then suddenly reappeared and awakened 1,500 years later with the guy named Martin Luther. I say, nice try but I don't easily get fooled by this novel idea.

Peace.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Ok. So who defines what is necessary to believe in Scripture?"

Who is the Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario?

James Swan said...

Who is the Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario?

Yes he is the champion. He's one of Romanism's many interpreters.

EBW said...

The shorter catechism is how one increases their understanding of things necessary for salvation. It helps explain the Confession.

Catholics should not press so hard on these points, due to CCC argues very much the same way. Service and progress to Ecumensim are found at these crossroads.
Anyone should read WCF Chptr XXXI and see the grave parellel to RCC. Also, see the Shrtr C:

3. Q. What do the Scriptures
PRINCIPALLY teach ?
A. The Scriptures PRINCIPALLY
teach, what man is to believe
concerning God, and what duty
God requires of man.

This is easily aligned with someone like Aquinas or other RCC theologians

Matthew Bellisario said...

Swan says, "Yes he is the champion. He's one of Romanism's many interpreters."

So is that your answer to these questions? Instead of answering what should be a simple question, instead you attack the name of my website? Par for the course.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"3. Q. What do the Scriptures
PRINCIPALLY teach ?
A. The Scriptures PRINCIPALLY
teach, what man is to believe
concerning God, and what duty
God requires of man.

This is easily aligned with someone like Aquinas or other RCC theologians"

So is baptism necessary for salvation? Is it one of the clear teachings of Scripture, or an obscure teaching?

dtking said...

Oh by the way the Catholic Church didn't prohibit laymen to read the Bible in their "time".

You are right that the catholic church didn't, but the communion of Rome did...

Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius: Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), p. 274-75.

EBW said...

Mr. Bellisario,

As a RC, I believe baptism (or desire for it) is most necessary for salvation as it is CLEARLY preached through Peter's first letter from HIS See. The infallible ordinary teaching office also confirms this in the CCC.

You asked:
Who determines such ?

The WCF answers in the Chptr I quoted.
II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..

I stress that this serves as a hinderance AND a crossroads for ecumenical dialogue. For consideration, read Leo XIII on the Unity of the Church. He comments on 1Cor 1:10 and clear scripture.

..Such passages certainly need no
interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves..

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Matthew Bellisario,

The purpose of this post was to define perspicuity so that you might see that there's no contradiction between:

(i) Matthew Schultz holding to the perspicuity of Scripture as defined by the WCF.

and,

(ii) Matthew Schultz recommending books to help Protestants see how Scripture speaks to bioethics.

I appreciate your additional questions, but they are beyond the scope of the issue, so I reserve the right (due to my schedule) not to address them at this time.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

(Bellisario) "Ok. So who defines what is necessary to believe in Scripture?"

(Me) "Who is the Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario?"

(Bellisario) "Swan says, "Yes he is the champion. He's one of Romanism's many interpreters."

So is that your answer to these questions?"

Matthew Bellisario, what is your answer to your own question:

"So who defines what is necessary to believe in Scripture?"

EBW said...

dtking,

Your quote:

Since it is clear from experience..

How could the Fathers write this if the communion of Rome did not
already have the Sacred Books permitted everywhere?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Matthew Bellisario asks: "For example. Is Baptism necessary for salvation according to Scripture? Is the teaching on Baptism part of the clear teaching, or is it an obscure part of Scripture? Who determines such?"

Reasonable questions.

I'll ask the following in return to Matthew Bellisario based upon his pattern above:

"For example. Is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus necessary for salvation according to Scripture? Is the teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus part of the clear teaching, or is it an obscure part of Scripture? Who determines such?"

P.S. Was the thief on the cross next to Jesus baptized?

John Bugay said...

EBW: As a RC, I believe baptism (or desire for it) is most necessary for salvation as it is CLEARLY preached ...

If the mere *desire* for baptism is sufficient, then baptism itself is *not* strictly "most necessary," isn't that correct?

through Peter's first letter from HIS See.

As we've noted here many times, it is a severe historical anachronism to use the word "see" with regard to Peter. At best, he was a missionary who visited Rome and perhaps died there.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Ha. I see quite a bit of dancing around the questions here. I rest my case. Nothing further needs to be said. None of you can tell me what is necessary to believe, or what teachings are clear in Sacred Scripture. Your WCF is manmade and no one in their right mind would regard its text as having any authority whatsoever. Your argument sums up like this.

-Scripture is clear in regards to what is necessary to believe for our salvation, yet we have no idea as to what those "beliefs" are. -

Call me a skeptic, but anyone who buys into this nonsense would also believe the emperor has on his new clothes too. Scripture is certainly God's written Word, too bad none of you Prots have a clue as to what it is or how to read and understand it in regards to the true Christian faith.

This is truly like watching a pygmy climb out of the rain forrest and stumble upon a garage with the blueprints and parts to a Ford Mustang. You guys of course expect him to drive out of the garage with a completely assembled Mustang, yet a wise man knows, it aint gonna happen. Get a clue.

dtking said...

How could the Fathers write this if the communion of Rome did not
already have the Sacred Books permitted everywhere?


Right, the pronouncement of Trent didn't mean anything, did it? Just goes to show what I've always maintained about the communion of Rome - it has no official pronouncement that isn't subject to the death of a thousand qualifications, which demonstrates in the clearest terms possible that Romanists engage in private interpretation of their own communion's decrees.

Matthew Bellisario said...

King, do you even have a clue as to what that particular rule applies to and why it was written? It appears that you haven't a clue. It looks to me like you just cut and pasted something from the index and that you have no idea as to its historical setting or what the text is referring to. Are you saying that Catholics should be shocked by the text or what?

Turretinfan said...

"Your WCF is manmade and no one in their right mind would regard its text as having any authority whatsoever."

Yet all Presbyterians do grant it at least some authority. So, all Presbyterians are not "in their right mind" according to the magisterium of one.

I wonder if Bellisario thinks before he writes?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Yes TF, it proves my point. I will not be one of the willing idiots who follows a manmade confession, holding it up as an authority. You and your Presbs can have at it. As soon as you prove that the WCF is inspired by God then let me know.

John Bugay said...

Matthew Bellisario -- You must like the sound of your keyboard blustering, because you really, really, really are missing the point.

The Scriptures are God's acts in history as interpreted by the prophets and the apostles. Scripture itself is the interpretation. It is not a private matter. The church does teach, using "due use of ordinary means."

This is a far stretch from your portrayal that "nobody knows..."

A child can start knowing the Scriptures in Sunday school.

Evidently that's too deep a concept for you.

John Bugay said...

And by the way Matthew Bellisario, "King" is not an appropriate way to address Pastor King.

John Bugay said...

I will not be one of the willing idiots who follows a manmade confession, holding it up as an authority.

Everything that Rome says is "manmade." So you don't even know what kind of a willing idiot you are!

dtking said...

King, do you even have a clue as to what that particular rule applies to and why it was written? It appears that you haven't a clue. It looks to me like you just cut and pasted something from the index and that you have no idea as to its historical setting or what the text is referring to. Are you saying that Catholics should be shocked by the text or what?

Mr. Romanist, yes I understand what it meant - It meant that Trent didn't want the Bible in the hands of ordinary members of the Roman communion, and I'm not really interested in any revisionist interpretation you want to offer.

But you can be sure of this, your response is more vacuous than the first. Thanks for sharing.

Matthew Bellisario said...

DT King says, "Mr. Romanist, yes I understand what it meant - It meant that Trent didn't want the Bible in the hands of ordinary members of the Roman communion, and I'm not really interested in any revisionist interpretation you want to offer. "

No, did you read the entire text or do you know what had happened at the time pertaining to the translations of the Scriptures? The text says nothing about keeping the Bible out of the hands of members of the Roman communion. It is referring to people like you and your heretical ancestors who made bad translations of the Scriptures that twisted its meaning. This is very clear for anyone who has read the entire document in its historical context. Obviously the document promotes the vernacular Scriptures, as long as they are promulgated by those who have the authority in the Church to do so. I hope you do not think that the Prots were the first to promulgate the Scriptures in vernacular languages. That is not a tenable position to hold I am afraid.

dtking said...

No, did you read the entire text or do you know what had happened at the time pertaining to the translations of the Scriptures? The text says nothing about keeping the Bible out of the hands of members of the Roman communion.

Thanks for sharing your private interpretation and blatant lie - very insightful, and the attempt at the red herring you offered at the end is more of the same. But, alas, what else does a Romanist have to offer?

Turretinfan said...

"That is not a tenable position to hold I am afraid."

Don't be afraid - it's not his position. It's just a straw man.

-TurretinFAn

natamllc said...

TF asks:

I wonder if Bellisario thinks before he writes?

Well, I think so?

Bellisario,

what is interesting is the responses in here to comments and questions from you.

It would be a fair assumption on my part that if you would go over the responses prayerfully asking God and consulting His Word of Grace, mind you, I agree, the Word of Grace Paul was drawing from were the parchments and maybe not a complete set, although, he was a wealthy fella so he could feasibly have a completed set, the answers are there?

I think there was a slight slant of humor directed towards you and I hope you don't go sour and take offense at it, but, maybe consider lining up these Words of Scripture, which I, [or assume], believe you wholeheartedly believe also, with this comment:

The verse:Joh 3:10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?


The comment:Who is the Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario?

Yes he is the champion. He's one of Romanism's many interpreters.


I believe it is fair to say, your framework and mindset from which you work these things out in your own mind are blinding your ability to stay on point, which is what the Apostle was getting at, again cited, here:

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"
1Ti 6:21 for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.


Presumably I think you will say within your own mind, "no, natamllc, I do not swerve from the Faith once delivered to the Saints" in either my mind or heart?

Oh, that's right, and I say this not in jest, just in fact, that not until your RCC Faith goes through a process a RC is not regarded as a Saint? Just a digression comment to that, I read somewhere that the Pope has been asked recently to fast track Pope John Paul to sainthood? Is that a fact?

As you are well aware of from Scripture, the authors of the New Testament, as we Prots, regard recognized "Sainthood" based in the decree of God and belief in His Words of Grace by His promises, ah, the Promise of God and not of men.

Turretinfan said...

"It is referring to people like you and your heretical ancestors who made bad translations of the Scriptures that twisted its meaning."

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. "

But the Magisterium of one insists that this is about the works of heretics, Bellasario locuta est, causa finita est.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Now, please TF, you have gone off the deep end and started speaking, ah, typing gibberish! :)

John Bugay said...

Bellasario locuta est, causa finita est.

We are indeed fortunate to have him articulating the Roman faith.

dtking said...

TF,

Thanks for reciting Trent, the problem with our zealous Romanist is that he is the one who doesn't read, and who, due to overt prejudice, is dismissive, and is therefore unable to offer an intelligible response. But I am all for him making such responses because it demonstrates to others that he really has nothing meaningful to offer, and he simply underscores his own practice of private [mis]interpretation. When they interpret their own communion's pronouncements in this way, we can understand why they insist on the need for formal, official magisterial statements because they lack the ability to interpret things meaningfully. But the problem is that their own magisterium needs to be interpreted, and their own members are left to themselves to do so. That's why we always encounter lay Romanist members here running around in the vicious hermeneutical circle of their own creation.

But the one constant on which you can always count from them is this - there is no official statement of their own magisterium that is not subject to the death of a thousand qualifications, no not even the clearest pronouncements of the same.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Matthew Bellisario,

I don't mind the insults, per se, what annoys me is this:

(1) The lack of logical argument in your insults. If you could add logical argument to your insults, then I could wade past the insults to get to your substance. But all too often, there's no substance.

(2) You deceive yourself into thinking your insults are an adequate substitute to logical argument.

When you do this, it really makes me laugh. It's like this:

Bellisario to Protestant Interlocutor: "Insult. 2nd Insult. 3rd Insult. [No substance]

I win. You lose. Case closed."

You're the Catholic Champion, alright. A champion in your own mind.

The real challenge in dealing with you is not refuting your arguments; the real challenge is in how to be gracious towards such belligerent and self-deceived stupidity.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Pastor King: "... there is no official statement of their own magisterium that is not subject to the death of a thousand qualifications, no not even the clearest pronouncements of the same."

This raises up an interesting comparison:

Perspicuity of Scripture vs. Perspicuity of the Magisterium

If you had to pick which one has more perspicuity, which one would you pick?

I pick Scripture.

If you had to pick which one has less perspicuity, which one would you pick?

I pick the Magisterium.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Are you guys serious?
It is plain that the Bible was not being kept from the faithful. The doc was published for a specific problem of the time. You people are really sick individuals over here and you consistently misconstrue everything that you can to promote your heresies. You will have to answer for your lies and misrepresentations of the Catholic faith when you die. The Magisterium of King and Fan have spoken, the case is closed. What a joke. Try actually reading the entire text for a change and be honest about it. Educate yourselves and learn a little bit about the historical setting in which the doc was penned in.

John Bugay said...

Matthew Bellisario: Educate yourselves and learn a little bit about the historical setting in which the doc was penned in.

I'm glad you've taken this attitude. Have you yet had a chance to look into some of the information regarding the early papacy that I've posted?

dtking said...

If you had to pick which one has more perspicuity, which one would you pick?

I think I'll answer in the language of William Whitaker, whose expression I think captures the essence of our disagreements with Romanists on this issue...

William Whitaker (1547-1595): The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. See William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 390.

Turretinfan said...

"Are you guys serious?"

Some of my comments were obviously mocking, but I'm serious that when it says "Catholic" it doesn't mean "heretic."

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

Tf writes, "Some of my comments were obviously mocking..."

Oh really, you don't say? Par for the course on your part I am afraid. It is good for your own sake that you shy away from the real argument at hand.

Turretinfan said...

What's your argument, Bellisario? Did I miss it among your misstatements and bizarre claims?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Keep up the mocking TF. We should just change your name "Mockery Fan".

Matthew Bellisario said...

Hey Mockery Fan! Tell us all how the evil Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the faithful so they would not discover that they had been duped into living a false Christian faith for the past 1500 years. Tell us Mockery Fan.

dtking said...

"Are you guys serious?"

Yes, and here's why, because the Romanist cannot, due to his biases, see anything clearly that contradicts his own predisposed commitment, and no one gave expression to this any clearer than Ignatius Loyala...

Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, Rule 13: That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. See Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 260.

And Bellarmine also exposes the Romanist mindset in much similar fashion...

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): If the Pope should err by enjoining vices and forbidding virtues, the Church would be bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be evil, unless she would be willing to sin against conscience. For translation, see William John Hall, The Doctrine of Purgatory and the Practice of Praying for the Dead (London: Henry Wix, 1843), p. 400.
Latin text: Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes malas, nisi vellet conscientiam peccare. De Romano Pontifice, Liber Quartus, Caput 5.

natamllc said...

Matt!

The doc was published for a specific problem of the time.

Excellent sentence!

Now, does that hold true today in here? Or, how about during the time of the Reformation until our time, here??

And I suppose you are going to overlook Pastor King's reference to the wisdom of Whitaker?

I have been reading a book by an acquaintance, Dr. J.V. Fesko. He's a brillant scholar, like some who post in here, as well.

I would cite from his book, Justification, Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine page 360 because of something you raised earlier above and Pastor King responded to it.

The citation from the book:

"....Is it not time to stop arguing about imaginary differences? Kung's observation is off point. No Reformed theologian has ever stated that the RCC does not acknowledge the doctrine of sanctification. The point of debate comes in where the doctrine of sanctification falls in the ordo salutis and how it relates to justification. Is justification based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, or is it based upon the infused righteousness of Christ in the believer?....".

If you would permit me, the difference is simple herewith you and those with you and us.

We stand or sit, however you want to make it expressed, solely in Christ alone. You, though we are talking about the same things, dying and going to heaven as your previous comment points, one's sanctification and justification, stand or sit with participation with Christ and not by Christ alone.

There is this gulf between us.

The question is simply, "who's point is the point?"

I would submit some ancient words from Isaiah as a point of contact to agree upon to bridge the gap in the gulf:

Isa 1:16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil,
Isa 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.
Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
Isa 1:21 How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.
Isa 1:22 Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water.
Isa 1:23 Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow's cause does not come to them.
Isa 1:24 Therefore the Lord declares, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: "Ah, I will get relief from my enemies and avenge myself on my foes.
Isa 1:25 I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy.
Isa 1:26 And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city."


So, again, I stand offering an olive branch of peace to you, God and the Word of His Grace!

At least, this much we can agree on, yes?

Turretinfan said...

Bellisario,

Do you have any argument at all? I see your question, and perhaps I'll find some time to assist you with finding an answer to it. However, right now, I'm wondering about any argument you may have.

-TurretinFan

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black." (St. Ignatius)

"If the Pope should err by enjoining vices and forbidding virtues, the Church would be bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be evil." (Bellarmine)

Wow. That explains the mindless zombie behavior and character of some Catholics.

I'm no endorser of Liberal Catholics, but at least they're not mindless zombies.

Jae said...

Truth unites: "I'll ask the following in return to Matthew Bellisario based upon his pattern above: "For example. Is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus necessary for salvation according to Scripture?"

John Bugay said: "Everything that Rome says is "manmade." So you don't even know what kind of a willing idiot you are!"

This is getting hot here. The problem when we fail to distinguished a clear difference between prots and Catholics regarding interpretive authority. As Matthew B. said there is a bit of dancing around the question and mostly going to non-tangents.

Look at the statements above, Matthew B was trying to illustrate to you guys since you hold the idea of Sola Scriptura by its fluency, lucidity, perspicuity and THE ONLY SOURCE OF AUTHORITY in all matters to christian faith and ethics then why hold and consider the so-called "manmade" (viz WCF, Book of Mormons etc) to be authoritative and inspired on the first place? That is OUTSIDE of the realm of "Bible Alone" theory.

In contrast to the catholics as we always say, that we hold the Scripture as infallible BUT we also say that OUTSIDE of it there's also an INFALLIBLE authority to interpret it. To us it doesn't make sense drinking pure water (Bible-inerrant) in a soiled cup (interpretation-so it should be inerrant/clean too).

So, therefore why are you subjecting us to the same criteria to which you guys made for yourselves on the first place?

Do we get the crucial point at least?

Jae said...

In short both of us Prots and Catholics accept the "authority" of manmade writings viz. WCF, Book of Mormons, Apostolic Tradition (Magisterium) or even the Bible itself is a manmade.

The only difference is that we Catholics admit it that there's an ENTITY OUTSIDE from the Bible with authority to interpret it - AS - in contrast to Prots where IT IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY (in reality on every individual's head).

Think of it this way, Ms. Texas can't proclaim herself the winner of the pageant there should be an outside entity with authority to do as such...or else it's a sham!

Think of the Supreme Court whose job is to interpret the Book of the U.S. Constitution and not some "laymen" like us.

I hope you got the pic.

dtking said...

...since you hold the idea of Sola Scriptura by its fluency, lucidity, perspicuity and THE ONLY SOURCE OF AUTHORITY in all matters to christian faith and ethics then why hold and consider the so-called "manmade" (viz WCF, Book of Mormons etc) to be authoritative and inspired on the first place?...

Can the Romanist understand the meaning of "straw man?" The Romanist must constantly create a "straw man" for the principle of sola Scriptura, because he can find no meaningful way to refute it.

1) The principle of sola Scriptura does not teach that the Scriptures are the only authority. Rather the principle stresses that Scripture is the only infallible authority.

2) No Protestant regards the WCF as inspired. But Roman apologists have to create and then attack a straw man, because, alas, what else do they have?

Jae said...

@dtking,

"Rather the principle stresses that Scripture is the only infallible authority."

Do you mind me asking, WHO is doing the stressing of the principle or doing the testing?

Well, look at what your buddy Matt S. wrote previously to WCF as INSPIRED and AUTHORITATIVE. By the way, not all protestants adhere to your version of definition, ok?

I do have a pretty good idea of what Sola Scriptura is:

"Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. It's the doctrine that only THE Bible contains all knowledge that is necessary for salvation."

Is this good enough for you?....oh by the way before I forget, going by your definition of the battlecry "Bible ALONE" and "SOLA Scriptura" is a straw man by itself, WHY? A contradiction BY ITSELF, because the words ONLY, ALONE and SOLA means just like that....ONE AND ONLY! (look in the dictionary)

Peace

Turretinfan said...

Well, it seems that when asked for his argument, Bellisario has provided none. What a pity! I would have enjoyed hearing an actual argument from him.

As for Bellisario's question: "Tell us all how the evil Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the faithful so they would not discover that they had been duped into living a false Christian faith for the past 1500 years."

Obviously, I haven't advocated that idea. I don't think it's coherent to talk about the evil organization that persecuted the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards, and Reformers as though it were 1500 years old.

Moreover, the insistence on the use of Latin long after people stopped speaking Latin, however, is well documented.

And the persecution of Tyndale for translating the Bible is also well documented.

- TurretinFan

John Bugay said...

Jae -- did it occur to you that "Scripture Alone" and "Faith Alone" and the other "solas" are not complete statements of doctrines? This may be why you're misunderstanding them.

Is this good enough for you:
Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.


I responded to this in the other thread where you posted it. This is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Maybe you should do some research and come back when you've figured things out.

Andrew said...

"So is baptism necessary for salvation? Is it one of the clear teachings of Scripture, or an obscure teaching?"

Yes, but it does not save.
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

dtking said...

Do you mind me asking, WHO is doing the stressing of the principle or doing the testing?

You should have thought of this before pontificating.

Well, look at what your buddy Matt S. wrote previously to WCF as INSPIRED and AUTHORITATIVE.

You're going to have to show me where he said that the WCF is inspired. I believe you're lying.

By the way, not all protestants adhere to your version of definition, ok?

No, not ok. But, by the way, did you know that Romanists make up their own version of what the principle of sola Scriptura, like yourself?

Is this good enough for you?....oh by the way before I forget, going by your definition of the battlecry "Bible ALONE" and "SOLA Scriptura" is a straw man by itself, WHY? A contradiction BY ITSELF, because the words ONLY, ALONE and SOLA means just like that....ONE AND ONLY! (look in the dictionary)

This is a great piece of "simple-simon" Roman propaganda! I bet this and $10 might get you a cup of coffee to celebrate your hollow victory. :)

Andrew said...

Matthew Bellisario said:
"As soon as you prove that the WCF is inspired by God then let me know."

Matthew, I don't believe that claim has been made here. Can you prove the inspiration about that which it has been claimed? Let's have some proof that your church's unwritten tradition is inspired.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Mockery Fan writes, "And the persecution of Tyndale for translating the Bible is also well documented."

Yes and the horribly heretical translation of his is also well documented and the Church had the duty to keep it out of the hands of the faithful who would be mislead by the bad translation. Thats my argument.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Only a misguided soul would say Tyndale was persecuted for translating the Bible. He was persecuted for translating it horribly with no authority to do so. Big difference.

Jae said...

We admitted of the past crimes which some of members of the church didn't follow their vows of holiness however, sins and corruption are not the monopoly of the Catholic Church....look at John Calvin who burnt people at stake who didn't believe him, he rule Geneva with an iron rod..."the pope of Geneva", well documented.

The thing is, no one has the monopoly of sins which is distinct from making errors in TEACHING doctrines.

Jae said...

dtking,

I'm not into lying business, if i must quote from your buddy then here it is:

Matthew S. : "You're free to use divinely inspired confessions if that will help you properly represent our position on the matter."

Does it satisfy you?

Besides the fact you say that if Sola Scriptura is NOT the only source of truth and authority, then WHY would anyone not believe the Book of Mormons as a good standing as WCF? Besides the fact, what criteria do you based your assertion that certain "manmade" writings are authoritative and true?

If you admit interpretations changed all the time as Mr. John Bugay believes, then WHY would anyone believe them in the first place if there exist a cloud of UNCERTAINTY? WHY?

dtking said...

...look at John Calvin who burnt people at stake who didn't believe him, he rule Geneva with an iron rod..."the pope of Geneva", well documented.

Well documented? Where is this piece of propaganda documented? Calvin did not approve of burning at the stake. For example, when the government of the city of Geneva tried Servetus for heresy, Calvin served only as a witness for the prosecution. And when the City of Geneva (not Calvin) convicted Servetus and sentenced him to death, it was Calvin who attempted to dissuade them from burning him at the stake. Calvin tried to convince them to perform a more humane execution, and the city refused to listen to Calvin.

Calvin did not rule Geneva with an iron rod, and was actually forced to leave Geneva for a time by the city officials.

But if you had really studied Calvin from scholarly sources you wouldn't be pontificating more propaganda. This garbage is ridiculous, but I do appreciate once again your willingness to share your ignorance with us.

dtking said...

Matthew S. : "You're free to use divinely inspired confessions if that will help you properly represent our position on the matter."

Does it satisfy you?


Yes, it satisfies me that you have a severe problem of reading with comprehension. In fact, you've only convicted yourself of the lie with which I charged you. Matthew S. never said the WCF was inspired. But again, you only prove to us your inability to read with comprehension, and this explains to us why you need everything interpreted for you. This would be hysterical if it wasn't so utterly stupid.

But I thank you again for being so transparent about your nonsense.

Jae said...

@ John Bugay,

If you disagree with the citation I made about the definition of "Sola Scriptura" then you have to deal with the President and Founder, reformed and Baptist preacher and theologian, S. Michael Houdmann. He possesses a Master's degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary and a Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College.

You see John even a definition of your basic belief you can't seem to agree with a guy with such distinguished academic prestige as you called your own.

Sad.

dtking said...

Alister McGrath: Although it was Calvin, acting as an individual, who arranged for Servetus’ accusation and arrest, it was the city council who—despite their intense hostility to Calvin—took over the case and prosecuted Servetus with vigour. (This caused some surprise to outside observers: Wolfgang Musculus wrote of his belief that Servetus evidently expected to benefit from the hostility of the city council towards Calvin.) It should be noted that Calvin’s role in these procedures was subsequently that of technical advisor or expert witness, rather than as prosecutor. On 21 August the Genevan authorities wrote to Vienne, asking for further information concerning their captive. In particular, they requested ‘duplicates of the evidence, information and arrest warrant’ against Servetus. The catholic authorities at Vienne immediately demanded the extradition of Servetus to face charges there. The city council then offered him a choice: he could either return to Vienne, or remain at Geneva and face the outcome of Genevan justice. It is significant that Servetus chose to remain at Geneva. Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 2000), p. 119.

Dozie said...

"Who is the Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario?"

No, unless you also insist that "Alpha and Omega" is James White.

Jae said...

dtking,

Honestly, do you want me to reply to your remarks? (aside from your insults).

I really think you are the one who's having reading comprehension problem here, please read the previous threads "Two bioethics Recommendation" before you even posting your comments. (note I didn't say idiotic).

You can't even answer why would anyone refer to WCF as authoritative when not even mentioned in the Scripture. Oh, by the way I don't need to refute your principle of Sola Scriptura because it's an entity of non-existent, NOWHERE found in the Bible.

Jae said...

dtking you always go for the non-tangents.

Besides the fact you say that if Sola Scriptura is NOT the only source of truth and authority, then WHY would anyone not believe the Book of Mormons as a good standing as WCF? Besides the fact, what criteria do you based your assertion that certain "manmade" viz. WCF - writings are authoritative and true?

If you admit interpretations changed all the time as Mr. John Bugay believes, then WHY would anyone believe them in the first place if there exist a cloud of UNCERTAINTY? WHY?

dtking said...

Honestly, do you want me to reply to your remarks? (aside from your insults).

Frankly, I don't care what you do. I'm only underscoring your nonsense as you express it.

I really think you are the one who's having reading comprehension problem here, please read the previous threads "Two bioethics Recommendation" before you even posting your comments. (note I didn't say idiotic).

Well, that's the problem, it's the way you think.

You can't even answer why would anyone refer to WCF as authoritative when not even mentioned in the Scripture. Oh, by the way I don't need to refute your principle of Sola Scriptura because it's an entity of non-existent, NOWHERE found in the Bible.

Now, there's a robust apologetic for you...just name it/claim it! LOL. Thanks for sharing. You couldn't state our position correctly if a gun were held to your head threatening you, and that's simply due to sheer ignorance, not a moral failure (I'm willing for the present to grant that).

Dozie said...

"And by the way Matthew Bellisario, "King" is not an appropriate way to address Pastor King."

What is wrong with addressing him by his proper name? Mr. King is unwilling to return as much favor to the Catholic Church. I am waiting to see when he will address the current bishop of Rome as "Holy Father".

natamllc said...

JAE

one:
In contrast to the catholics as we always say, that we hold the Scripture as infallible BUT we also say that OUTSIDE of it there's also an INFALLIBLE authority to interpret it.

two:
The only difference is that we Catholics admit it that there's an ENTITY OUTSIDE from the Bible with authority to interpret it - AS - in contrast to Prots where IT IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY (in reality on every individual's head).

Now, I would venture into the deep waters of difference with you with these Words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself:

Joh 16:1 "I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.
Joh 16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.
Joh 16:3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Joh 16:4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
Joh 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'
Joh 16:6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Now, you make a good point about the differences.

Granted we both agree.

Where I differ though is with your second claim above.

You see, I would affirm that we also agree with your words in the second citation by me of your comments above, once qualified by John 16:1-14.

You wrote:The only difference is that we Catholics admit it that there's an ENTITY OUTSIDE from the Bible with authority to interpret it.

We also admit to three other infallible entities outside of the Scriptures which have equal authority to interpret them. They are Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, who is sent to us by Jesus Himself, according to the Will of Our Father in Heaven and Our Heavenly Father, Himself, as well.

Remember something, the wages of sin, or the works done in self-righteousness or evil, whether good or bad, is "death". The free gift is "Eternal Life", knowing the Only True God and Jesus Christ, Whom He sent.

And, for us less fortunate than those who got to see Him, touch Him, eat with Him and fellowship with Him, Jesus, before and after He was raised from the dead, we have been given His Grace through Faith and that by no merit of ourselves, as Jesus said. Now the Spirit of Truth is the One who declares to us the things that point to Jesus and make perspicacious the perspicuity of Scriptures, both old and new. He has come to us so that we can read the Scriptures and other writings about God to understand His New and Living Way in this life that we live here on earth as sojourners. We can learn about God from books, from papers, from sermons preached, from creeds and doctrines taught.


cont'd

natamllc said...

continuing,

Jesus Himself affirmed this and taught it as is recorded at John 16.


What is the difference then that I see between what you believe is Truth and what we believe is Truth coming from men or man made writings?

Well, the Apostle Paul makes it clear, for me, at least, the difference between what is worthy of all acceptation as being inspired of God and what is not comes by way of this exhortation, here:


Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

If after reading a book or a creed or a doctrine or edict and the God of Peace is not all over it and you, chances are it's not sanctioned by God but distinguished by God as not from His Eternal Purpose or Will.

Well, the Apostle Paul makes it clear, for me, at least, the difference between what is worthy of all acceptation as being inspired of God and what is not comes by way of this exhortation, here:


Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

If after reading a book or a creed or a doctrine or edict and the God of Peace is not all over it and you, chances are it's not sanctioned by God but distinguished by God as not from His Eternal Purpose or Will.

dtking said...

What is wrong with addressing him by his proper name? Mr. King is unwilling to return as much favor to the Catholic Church. I am waiting to see when he will address the current bishop of Rome as "Holy Father".

Mr. King will do just fine. As for the bishop of Rome, he's not my father, holy or otherwise, and I refuse out of conviction to acknowledge a lie. I'm not going to pander to a bunch of Romanists (i.e. those faithful to the Roman communion) who want what I cannot in good conscience give. I refuse to violate my conscience simply to make a Romanist feel better about himself.

And I use the term "Romanist" out of conviction as well, because given the dogmas that are peculiar to Rome (e.g. immaculate conception of Mary, her bodily assumption, papal primacy and infallibility) are not "catholic" dogmas. These dogmas are as anti-catholic as they can be, and are peculiar to the Roman communion.

Now, to be sure I do not resent a Romanist calling me a "Calvinist," why should a Romanist object to a proper description which is simply descriptive of his allegiance to Rome?

Dozie said...

"Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian."

Who makes you believe this? Is this definition found in the bible? If it is not there who is to make it an acceptable statement and by what authority? These are the questions you must address.

EBW said...

Mr. Bugay,

Infallible ordinary teaching:
Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X

7Q.Are we able to observe God's commandments?
A.Yes, without doubt we are able to observe God's commandments, because God never commands anything
that is impossible, and because He gives grace to observe them to those who ask it as they should.

16Q. Is baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again fo water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God".
17Q. Can the absence of baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied..baptism ofblood..baptism of desire
Changing conditions always give way to necessity, but necessity gives way to possibility.

Trent Canon 3 on Baptism
If anyone shall say that in the Roman Church(which is the mother and the teacher of all churches) there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism:let him be anathema.

Dozie said...

"You should have thought of this before pontificating."

Yet, you show your pathetic fear by not answering simple questions.

dtking said...

Yet, you show your pathetic fear by not answering simple questions.

Yes, and where did you obtain your license for such a diagnosis? I think you're practicing without a license, but this is just another case of a Romanist engaging in private interpretation. Thanks for sharing.

Turretinfan said...

"Yes and the horribly heretical translation of his is also well documented and the Church had the duty to keep it out of the hands of the faithful who would be mislead [sic] by the bad translation."

a) Looks like they failed to keep it out of the hands of "the faithful."

b) Who told them they had that duty?

c) Please identify what made his translation an horribly heretical one.

"Only a misguided soul would say Tyndale was persecuted for translating the Bible. He was persecuted for translating it horribly with no authority to do so. Big difference."

a) No one is saying his translation is perfect - but "translating horribly"? Are you prepared to defend that defamatory claim?

b) Why would he need "authority" to translate God's Word into another language?

-TurretinFan

Dozie said...

And I use the term "Romanist" out of conviction as well, because given the dogmas that are peculiar to Rome (e.g. immaculate conception of Mary, her bodily assumption, papal primacy and infallibility) are not "catholic" dogmas.

You are fully aware that the term “Romanist” is not a name that the Catholic Church uses for herself. Your continued and deliberate use of the term in reference to the Church called holy, catholic, and apostolic, is most offensive. I point this out simply to say that by your own actions, you make yourself unworthy of respect.

You list dogmas peculiar to “Rome”. I would include in the list, Trinity, NT Canon, Mary as mother of God. None of the apostles knew about these dogmas in their lifetimes. If you dispute this claim, then simply show that Paul believed in the 27 books of the NT and made them the principal sources of his teachings. If you can't do this, then you do not belong to the Church that Paul belonged (as you seem to be arguing).

Turretinfan said...

Responding to this: "Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian."

Dozie writes: "Who makes you believe this? Is this definition found in the bible? If it is not there who is to make it an acceptable statement and by what authority? These are the questions you must address."

These questions, though, are ambiguous. One possible interpretation of the questions is "why do you believe Sola Scripture?" The other interpretation is "why do you use the expression 'Sola Scriptura' to refer to that doctrine?"

If it is the former question, the answer is that Scripture itself teaches it.

If it is the latter question, the answer is that it is a convention. If times change such that "sola scriptura" comes to mean KJV-only-ism, we'll continue to hold to the scriptural doctrine, but simply call it by a different name.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Your continued and deliberate use of the term in reference to the Church called holy, catholic, and apostolic, is most offensive."

With all due respect, it's far more offensive to us for you to assert that the church ruled over by the Antichrist is holy, catholic, or apostolic. Yet, you don't see us complaining every time one of your co-religionists uses the term, do you?

-TurretinFan

Jae said...

Gosh, DTKING here we go again....avoiding the real questions, just create a diversion and insults then go to the non-tangents.

Anyways, John have said, we have the essentials and the rest are not important, pertaining to the Scripture. Well, the problem is...Who has the authority to say this? It is already an exercize of authority, besides the fact it is nowhere found in the Bible.

EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS IMPORTANT!

So at least it show you and Prots practiced authority the only thing is you guys don't have any clue.

natamllc said...

Dozie

Not knowing you and not interested in wading into the middle of the debate you are having with Pastor King, I am interested in your take on this verse:

Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

With that, would you be arguing that within that verse is the justification for the dogmas you make reference to and Pastor King makes reference to?

If your response is favorable I have a follow on question for you also.

thanks

Turretinfan said...

"EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS IMPORTANT!"

Now you're thinking like a Protestant!

natamllc said...

TF,

yeah, but now the hard question?

How do we get them to live like a Protestor?

I have swimming trunks, a rubber inflatable boat and life jackets if they don't know how to swim? :)

Dozie said...

"With that, would you be arguing that within that verse is the justification for the dogmas you make reference to and Pastor King makes reference to?"

I would know nothing of the verse, or the bible, or of Jesus; nor would I have believed any except for the Church who proposes them for my acceptance. As a Catholic, I am not the author of my own faith. Particulars of Catholic faith are handed down, not conjured up by individuals.

You see how easy it is to answer a question that seems to have some sense of reasonableness to it.

Dozie said...

"the answer is that Scripture itself teaches it."

No, the scriptures do not teach sola scriptura.

the question then is, on what basis/authority are you going to reject my claim? You are going to have to go to the bible to show me that authority.

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Bellisario said...

No Mockery Fan, its the Protestant that says the essentials are easy to understand in Scripture, yet it is the Protestant that cannot tell anyone what the essentials are.

As far as using names like King, or DT King, or pastor King, or Prophet King, who cares? King is his last name correct? Then there should be no problem. His sign on name is dtking. My conscience will not allow me to use a false title like pastor to be applied to him, when I know full and well that he no "pastor."

As most of you Catholics know already, the double standards over here are numerous. You just have to deal with it if you want to post over here. Sorry if King or DT King, or dtKing is not good enough, King is the guy's last name, dtking is what his user name is. Get over it and quit complaining. You guys use derogatory names all of the time like Romanist, papist, etc. You confuse the name of my website with my title all of the time, who cares? Likewise I have now temporarily adopted the new name of Mockery Fan for Turretin Fan, given that he has now fully admitted to his preferred method of mocking rather than arguing with any substance.

As far as translating the Scriptures go, not every Tom Dick and Harry can make his own translation and then pass it off as if it is an accurate one. It is the responsibility of the authority that Christ gave the apostles to preserve and pass on the Gospel. Part of that is preserving it from corruption, which includes not allowing heretics and idiots to translate the text with words that fit their own heretical theologies.

As far as Calvin goes, don't let guys like King pass off lies that make it seem like Calvin was a choirboy in Geneva. He was a madman and a tyrant. Remember Jaques Gruet? Look him up and see what happened to people who opposed the tyrant Calvin.

John Bugay said...

Jae: You see John even a definition of your basic belief you can't seem to agree with a guy with such distinguished academic prestige as you called your own.

If you admit interpretations changed all the time as Mr. John Bugay believes, then WHY would anyone believe them in the first place if there exist a cloud of UNCERTAINTY? WHY?

You know, the Protestant confessions were written early on. There is a tremendous amount of agreement among them.

You began by asking about the doctrine. I've given you the statement from historical Protestant confessions.

And even if this individual does believe that the Bible is the only authority, that is far less of a problem because the starting point is far more secure than is that of the "scripture+tradition+magisterium" types.

I have borrowed a bit from our friend Rhology and posted them at a new post, here, to show you why your claim of "a cloud of uncertainty" is ill-founded.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/epistemological-paradigms.html

John Bugay said...

Dozie: Check this out for a picture of how it works:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/epistemological-paradigms.html

Matthew Bellisario said...

Trust me, the picture is not anywhere near a true depiction of reality. It only exists in the fantasies of the Protestant mind.

John Bugay said...

Dozie: You are fully aware that the term “Romanist” is not a name that the Catholic Church uses for herself. Your continued and deliberate use of the term in reference to the Church called holy, catholic, and apostolic, is most offensive. I point this out simply to say that by your own actions, you make yourself unworthy of respect.

But surely you must realize that this term, which is only used as a descriptive term to describe that body which is focused on "Roman" doctrines and practices,

The fact is that the Roman Catholic use of the word "Catholic," as it tries to define itself as such, is really most offensive. So by its own actions, it makes itself unworthy of respect.

John Bugay said...

Trust me, the picture is not anywhere near a true depiction of reality. It only exists in the fantasies of the Protestant mind.

Trust me, the picture is a true depiction of reality.

If you want fantasies and falsehoods, check out the early papacy.

dtking said...

You are fully aware that the term “Romanist” is not a name that the Catholic Church uses for herself. Your continued and deliberate use of the term in reference to the Church called holy, catholic, and apostolic, is most offensive. I point this out simply to say that by your own actions, you make yourself unworthy of respect.

Dear Mr. Romanist, thanks for sharing. I have stated why I regard the Roman communion as the most anti-catholic communion in the world today, namely the holding to dogmas that are neither "catholic" nor "apostolic." The attempt to shame me into silence is not an argument for your communion's catholicity. It's simply the same ole assertion that Romanists make.

As for the personal remark directed to me, you are most welcome to your private judgment, and I take no offense because I could care less.

Dozie said...

"The fact is that the Roman Catholic use of the word "Catholic," as it tries to define itself as such, is really most offensive. So by its own actions, it makes itself unworthy of respect."

Some day, John Bugay will learn to be original and stop popularizing (through copying and pasting) other people's materials.

John Bugay said...

Dozie -- there is nothing new under the sun.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Sorry Bugay, the papacy is a reality that you cannot just stomp your feet and wish away. The picture is a total misrepresentation of reality.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Jae writes:

Well, look at what your buddy Matt S. wrote previously to WCF as INSPIRED and AUTHORITATIVE.

Perhaps as the author of the comment in question I can clear up this matter.

My specific wording was a bit of word play on Matthew Bellisario's use of "man-made" with respect to his misrepresentation of the doctrine of perspicuity. It had no reference to the WCF as inspired.

Turretinfan said...

MB wrote: "Sorry Bugay, the papacy is a reality that you cannot just stomp your feet and wish away. The picture is a total misrepresentation of reality. "

What is a misrepresentation is calling Mr. Bugay's work "just stomp[ing] [his] feet and wish[ing] away" the papacy. Everyone who reads what Mr. Bugay has been writing can see that he's been seriously considering the matter and doing historical investigation.

It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions reasonably, and it's another thing to disagree with them in the way you've been doing.

dtking said...

To Rick,

May the true light of the Word of God shine in your heart.

He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own Is like one who takes a dog by the ears. Proverbs 26:17

Turretinfan said...

"Some day, John Bugay will learn to be original and stop popularizing (through copying and pasting) other people's materials."

To whom shall we liken this generation of Romanists, and to whom shall we compare them? When we don't quote from others, they claim we're making it up - when we do quote from others, they claim they wish we more original.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Dozie wrote: "No, the scriptures do not teach sola scriptura. the question then is, on what basis/authority are you going to reject my claim? You are going to have to go to the bible to show me that authority."

ok

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Particulars of Catholic faith are handed down, not conjured up by individuals."

Who handed down the bodily assumption of Mary in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century?

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"excuses to avoid the real arguments here"

What real arguments? Where are you hiding them?

"its [sic] the Protestant that says the essentials are easy to understand in Scripture, yet it is the Protestant that cannot tell anyone what the essentials are."

Yes, it's like saying that you know that Advil cures a headache without necessarily knowing what active ingredient in it does the trick. You can affirm that Scripture presents all the essentials clearly without being able to identify the active ingredients or distinguish the active from the inactive ingredients.

"he has now fully admitted to his preferred method of mocking rather than arguing with any substance"

That's a childish lie on your part, Bellisario.

"As far as translating the Scriptures go, not every Tom Dick and Harry can make his own translation and then pass it off as if it is an accurate one."

People who try to do that get embarrassed when their mistakes get pointed out - like your pope Sixtus V and his disastrously bad version.

But Tyndale's version - while imperfect - was a scholarly translation that was accurate enough to pass muster, even if there was room for improvement.

"It is the responsibility of the authority that Christ gave the apostles to preserve and pass on the Gospel."

For your argument to work it would need to be the sole responsibility of "the authority" to do this. But we both know that it is not the sole responsibility of "the authority," but it is the duty of all Christians to pass on the Gospel.

"Part of that is preserving it from corruption, which includes not allowing heretics and idiots to translate the text with words that fit their own heretical theologies."

a) Clearly - by your theory - they failed. See the New World Translation (or the Clementine Vulgate).

b) And who says that they have this duty? Name me a church father (or even quote me an anonymous Christian write) before the fourth crusade that thought "the Church" as an authority had the duty to prevent "heretics" (or "idiots") from translating God's Holy Word. Is this just another example of you being a magisterium of one? Or do you think the Scriptures or the early church held this belief?

"He [Calvin] was a madman and a tyrant."

One can read his commentary on almost the entire Bible and realize that no madman could write such a thing. Or one can read volume upon volume of his sermons and realize that no madman could preach such a thing.

As for being a tyrant, it's a very weak sort of tyrant who cannot get his way (as Calvin did not, when it came to the mode of execution of Servetus).

-TurretinFan

John Bugay said...

Rick, it doesn't seem to me as if you or your humble Reformed church folk have interacted much with Roman Catholics.

All I'll say is that, when you play football, you don't get upset when someone tackles you. It's part of the sport.

James Swan said...

Rick, you're done. Go somewhere else. Your comments will be deleted.

Turretinfan said...

Jae wrote: "Then protestant's pick and choose strategy on which Ecumenical Councils "contained" orthodoxy without basis but just their preconceived idea that suits them and to make us believe that after their cut-off date of around 500 A.D. went into error abandoned by the Holy Spirit then suddenly reappeared and awakened 1,500 years later with the guy named Martin Luther. I say, nice try but I don't easily get fooled by this novel idea."

a) Obviously 1517-500 = 1,017 not 1,500.

b) Some "Protestants" may hold to the idea that basically the church disappeared for 1,000 years, but that's not the Reformed position.

c) It may seem arbitrary to someone who accepts councils on very different grounds, but the method that is being used is comparison of the doctrinal definitions of the councils with Scripture (at least in the Reformed approach).

d) And, of course, the methodology we use applies to all councils, not just purportedly "ecumenical" councils.

-TurretinFan

dtking said...

You list dogmas peculiar to “Rome”. I would include in the list, Trinity, NT Canon, Mary as mother of God.

The Trinity is not peculiarly a Roman dogma; moreover, Rome didn't give us the NT Canon, and the Θεοτόκος (rightly understand, "God-bearer") did not originate in Rome.

None of the apostles knew about these dogmas in their lifetimes.

This is simply an unproven assertion. Please notice the tactic employed...A truth claim is asserted without proof, and then the writer while presupposing his truth claim, without proof, then shifts the burden of proof to his opponent to disprove it. It is presupposed by the writer that he has no burden of proof for his own claim. It's a Walter Mitty world in which the Romanist lives!

If you dispute this claim, then simply show that Paul believed in the 27 books of the NT and made them the principal sources of his teachings.

Well, he ought to know, by the Holy Spirit's grace of θεόπνευστος, the apostle Paul was God's chosen vessel to write half of them. And his epistles were the principal sources expressing his teaching. As the Apostle said...

1 Cor 14:37-38:
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Furthermore, Paul informs us in Acts 26:22-23...

22 "Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come--
23 "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Turretinfan said...

"You list dogmas peculiar to “Rome”. I would include in the list, Trinity, NT Canon, Mary as mother of God. None of the apostles knew about these dogmas in their lifetimes. "

The doctrine of the trinity is not a Roman distinctive - just as "theism" is not a Roman distinctive.

The NT canon is also not a Roman distinctive, just as accepting Isaiah as Scripture is not a Roman distinctive.

The idea of Mary as the "mother of God" is not a Roman distinctive either, if that term is understood in the sense of Theotokos - if it is understood as elevating Mary above one person of the Trinity ... but surely you would not so openly blaspheme.

-TurretinFan

Dozie said...

“The Trinity is not peculiarly a Roman dogma; moreover, Rome didn't give us the NT Canon, and the Θεοτόκος (rightly understand, "God-bearer") did not originate in Rome.”

Which Protestant council defined the Trinity for you?
Is there a Protestant canon? If so, how did it come about? Which Protestant “church” or council defined the NT for you?

“This is simply an unproven assertion. Please notice the tactic employed”

This is a non-response. If you think that my assertion is flimsy, then it should be easy for you to refute. And, since you hold up the bible as your only authoritative source for doctrine in your religion, you can attempt to use the bible to do the job.

dtking said...

This is a non-response. If you think that my assertion is flimsy, then it should be easy for you to refute. And, since you hold up the bible as your only authoritative source for doctrine in your religion, you can attempt to use the bible to do the job.

OK, two can play this little game...

This is a non-response. If you think that my claims are flimsy, then it should be easy for you to refute. And, since you hold up the your authorities in the Roman communion and unwritten tradition as sources for your flimsy claims, you can attempt to use them to do what you seem unwilling to do.

See, how easy that is? It's the game of pretending to do apologetics without doing them! :)

Moral of the story? I don't accept Romanist truth claims at face value.

John Bugay said...

I had been poking around in some of the older posts, and I found this quote from Carrie:

The answer is: parity is not good enough. Catholicism claims a superior position to Protestantism in matters of unity and certainty and yet those claims can not be backed up. The "so what, you're no better" answer does not cut it in these discussions.

Source: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/10/surveys-on-catholic-unity.html

Dozie, believing as you do that Rome has the truth, and we have something false, then it should be a matter of ease for you to cite chapter and verse, page number, year, and date for every bit of information you are asking for. Because, after all, having the truth makes it easy to defend -- it's the weave of lies that starts to unravel when you start asking hard questions.

So rather than come here and badger us to produce this or that source, why don't you tell us what the real truth is. No doubt, it will cause us to crumble and cringe in fear.

Turretinfan said...

"Which Protestant council defined the Trinity for you?"

Reformed churches do not require conciliar definition of the truth to believe it. It is sufficient that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of the trinity.

"Is there a Protestant canon?"

The Scriptures are the Reformed rule (canon) of faith and life.


"If so, how did it come about?"

Holy men of God wrote down what the Holy Spirit breathed out.

"Which Protestant “church” or council defined the NT for you?"

Like Athanasius, we don't need a church or council to define the NT for us. We recognize the fact of inspiration.

"If you think that my assertion is flimsy, then it should be easy for you to refute."

LOL

-TurretinFan

Dozie said...

"It is sufficient that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of the trinity." "The Scriptures are the Reformed rule (canon) of faith and life." "Like Athanasius, we don't need a church or council to define the NT for us. We recognize the fact of inspiration."

If the issues were not serious, these responses would be utterly laughable. In any case, I could not resist asking who the we in "we recognize the fact of inspiration" refers to? How did "we" recognize the fact of inspiration; individually or collectively? What measures did "we" use to determine what belongs to the canon and what is outside of it? Who came up with the yardsticks? Were the yardsticks also inpired and contained in the Scriptures?

Turretinfan said...

"If the issues were not serious, these responses would be utterly laughable."

Try to control your laughter. It may say more about you than about the comment you are responding to.

"In any case, I could not resist asking who the we in "we recognize the fact of inspiration" refers to?"

Me and my Christian brethren.

"How did "we" recognize the fact of inspiration; individually or collectively?"

The Holy Spirit persuaded us of it in various ways. We give, however, all the credit to Him. He is the yardstick of His Word - or more exactly, he is the one who reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

-TurretinFan

Dozie said...

"Try to control your laughter."

How can I?
I asked you: "How did "we" recognize the fact of inspiration; individually or collectively?"

You respond: "The Holy Spirit persuaded us of it in various ways."

Did you not understand the question?

Turretinfan said...

I thought I did. Did you understand the answer?

Ronald W. Di Giacomo said...

You are fully aware that the term “Romanist” is not a name that the Catholic Church uses for herself. Your continued and deliberate use of the term in reference to the Church called holy, catholic, and apostolic, is most offensive. I point this out simply to say that by your own actions, you make yourself unworthy of respect.

“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

I would think that you should find that terminology even more incendiary. Notwithstanding, it is a popular belief within the Reformed tradition that is held to by more than a few, yet without deserving even the mildest censure. Accordingly, you are not very “catholic” in your view of what may be humbly believed about the Roman communion and what terms are considered acceptable.

Ron

John Bugay said...

Ron D -- welcome to Beggars All :-)

Ronald W. Di Giacomo said...

Hi John,

I'm sure I'll feel right at home here!

Blessings,

Ron

Turretinfan said...

"Infallible ordinary teaching:"

This comment raised my eyebrows. What makes EBW think the quoted question/answer pair are infallible?

As for the canon of Trent quoted, I believe that would fall in the extraodinary category.

-TurretinFan

dtking said...

Dozie claimed, You list dogmas peculiar to “Rome”. I would include in the list, Trinity... None of the apostles knew about these dogmas in their lifetimes.

This is a direct contradiction of the ancient church historian, Socrates Scholasticus...

Socrates Scholasticus (b. 380-?): We must now however make some allusion to the origin of this custom in the church of responsive singing. Ignatius third bishop of Antioch in Syria from the apostle Peter, who also had held intercourse with the apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels hymning in alternate chants the Holy Trinity. NPNF2: Volume II, The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter 10.

The Romanists often lecture us on the early church fathers, but 1) they are not really acquainted with them, and 2) in ignorance they often contradict them.

dtking said...

Correction: the reference to Socrates Scholasticus above is an error. The correct reference should be NPNF2: Volume II, The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Book VI, Chapter 8.

My apologies.

dtking said...

I offer the testimony of Epiphanius as well...

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): We believe what the truth everywhere discloses and sound reasoning suggests in agreement with the standard of piety, with the Law and prophets, and the ancient patriarchs in succession, and with the teaching of the Savior himself. (3) For the Lord and his apostles plainly teach us to confess one God and Father, the almighty sovereign of all, and our Lord Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit, one Trinity uncreate—while all other things were created out of nothing, subsequent to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (4) Now since these things are confessed plainly believed, by these holy prophets, evangelists, and apostles, so shifty invention can withstand the truth’s bright beam, as I have said in detail often enough in opposition to every sect. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46) 34. Against Marcosians 21.2-4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 231-232.

EBW said...

Turrentin Fan,

The canon of Trent is extraordinary. I should have been more clear.

These Q/A meet the criteria for Infallible Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. Also, I add my Sensus Fidei as a witness to these teachings.

Turretinfan said...

EBW:

I think that common sense would tell us that counting an "implicit" desire for baptism for baptism is de facto to deny that baptism itself is absolutely necessary for salvation.

I mean compare this:

17: Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

With this (from Trent's session on Baptism):

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Or this (same section):

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Making mere implicit desire enough seems to make baptism itself unnecessary, as does permitting baptism by blood.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent states:

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Can you find anything in Trent (either in the extraordinary teachings or ordinary teachings, such as the catechism) that says that the baptism by blood or the mere implicit desire for baptism is enough?

And if it were enough, why would one need to administer emergency baptisms on normal adults?

-TurretinFan

EBW said...

Turrentinfan,

Now this is a real pinch. Do I deny common sense (reason) or fear the anathemas ? Escape is found in the WCF Chpt XXVIII of Baptism:

V. ALTHOUGH IT BE A GREAT SIN TO CONTEMN OR NEGLECT THIS ORDINANCE,
yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annaxed unto it, as no person can be regenerated, or save without it; or, that all that baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

The same reasoning is supposed in
Rome and WFC at this point.

Who ever administers Baptisms, with or without emergency, are still obliged under the Law of Baptism when it is possible.
Necessity gives way to possibility because God's commands are not impossible.

Turretinfan said...

EBW:

You wrote:

"Necessity gives way to possibility because God's commands are not impossible."

But it is written:

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

And, of course, furthermore you rightly see that in your construct necessity gives way. Thus, it can hardly be said to be necessity, much less "absolute necessity."

-TurretinFan

EBW said...

Terrentinfan,

Once someone gives the reasons for the contemning and neglect of baptism being a sin, then you'll have the conditions for necessity.

Conditions for possibility will follow from the reasons that grace and salvation are not so *inseprably annexed* to the Water/Word union.

Did the WCF err on this point ?


Why Acts 15:10 ? Did the WCF tempt God with an unbearable yoke on the Christians when it says that the Moral law binds ? Or did you mean something else ?

Turretinfan said...

"Once someone gives the reasons for the contemning and neglect of baptism being a sin, then you'll have the conditions for necessity."

Are you under the mistaken impression that the WCF is stating that baptism is necessary for salvation?

-TurretinFan

EBW said...

Turrentinfan,

The WCF doesn't teach that baptism is necessary for salvation because of its doctrines on faith, the law of God and covenant of works. It does, however, teach that neglect and conteming baptism incurs SIN.

So, at least, a necessity of command/precept is taught to avoid sin. This is a condition. HOW this necessity relates to salvation is for another time and place. Read the commentary by Hodge for insight.
So can anyone NOT be baptized, according to Christ's ordinance,
and avoid incurring sin ? Yes, because grace and salvation are not *inseparably annexed* .

Turretinfan said...

EBW:

It is a sin to fail to obey the command of God to be baptized - a sin of omission. A person who has sinned in this way, however, may still be saved because while the forgiveness of sins is absolutely necessary, baptism is not absolutely necessary.

But you're left with the contradiction, while the WCF stands consistent.

- TurretinFan

EBW said...

Turrentinfan,

Thanks for the exchange. More will need to be debated.

EBW