tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5398296910437604189..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Looking for a Bible Reference....James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68401001856406243142011-08-08T09:46:29.883-04:002011-08-08T09:46:29.883-04:00Christ instituted marriage when he laid his life d...<i> Christ instituted marriage when he laid his life down for his bride, the Church, revealing what marriage is. </i> <br /><br />No, Christ did not instituted marriage then, else no one would have been married prior to that, but He did affirm marriage, and exampled what Christian marriage should be. In both baptism and the Lord's supper, a common practice (washing and eating) is used, and like the sacrificial lamb and the accoutrements of the Temple, they are used to represent something spiritual. But the issue here (apart from the meaning of sacraments) is that of the church taking any common practice and formally sacramentalizing them, as well as binding souls to observe numerous days, as part of a highly ritualized religion, versus only recognizing as binding formal practices those which the Lord Himself instituted as seen in Scripture. <br /><br /> <i> Also, marriage in Islam is NOT the same as christianity, as your source stated. In Islam, marriage is not an oath before God, but a contract between people </i> <br /><br />And which is marriage nonetheless, which God recognizes, else all the pagan Gentiles converts would have had to be remarried upon conversion, but instead these marriage became sanctified even because of one spouse being saved. (1Cor. 7:14) (But the broad criteria used for Rome's annulments of consummated marriages is contrary to Scripture, and its implications problematic.) And in the general sense all is to be sacred, as per 1Cor. 10:31: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39675470237721250002011-08-08T09:45:44.418-04:002011-08-08T09:45:44.418-04:00I would like to point out "at least of doing ...<i>I would like to point out "at least of doing what the Church does." That is, as long as the minister performs such a act in accord with how it should be acted, then most definitely the Sacrament is valid. For example, in reconciliation if you here the words of absolution, you can be absolutely sure that you are forgiven by Christ regardless of what you think about the priest </i> <br /><br />That is your own private interpretation of what it means, but words of absolution do not necessarily reveal the intent of heart, and as the devil can utter Scripture with the intent to deceive, so could one of his ministers declare you are forgiven with the intent to deceive. And thus as reported from Bellarmine's dispute, <br /><br />"No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another's intention" ("Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5). — Cardinal Bellarmine (http://www.archive.org/details/plainreasonsaga01littgoog, pp. 13-14) See also http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-2-succession.html <br /><br />Then there is the <a href="http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/confession_penance.htm" rel="nofollow">development</a> <br /><a href="http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/penancehistory.html" rel="nofollow"> Confession and Penance</a> <br />which take another thread in unraveling Rome. <br /><br /> <i>But when it speaks of Baptizing households, it does not clarify "those of age" or something as such. </i> <br /><br />Faith must be in one by faith in order to have Christ in them, (Rm. 8:9; Eph. 1:13; 3:17) and while Rome holds that infants must be baptized to go to Heaven, the silence of Scripture on such a grave matter, in which no infants are described being baptized, while also clearly declaring the requirements for baptism, and that those who believed were the ones who were baptized, does not allow us to establish a doctrine that souls who cannot repent and believe are to be baptized. <br /><br />And as they know not how to refuse the evil and choose the good out of a moral conscience, (Is. 7:16) i do not see Ps. 5:5 or Rm. 5:12 meaning that such are culpable of sin (nor that marital sexual relations must involve sin, as some of the church fathers held) or otherwise are in need of conversion. While we suffer temporal consequences due to the sins of others (as well as benefit from their merits: Jn. 4:37,38) eternal judgment is based upon what one has done, not their fathers. (Dt. 24:16; 2Chrn. 25:4; Ezek. 18:20; 2Cor. 5:10; Rv. 20:11-14)<br /><br />We are however, born with a definite predisposition to sin, though such can be resisted, (Gn. 4:7) but is it quite empirically evident that sprinkling infants does not result in a constitutional change.<br /><br /> <i>The kingdom of heaven in fact belongs to those as children. </i> <br /><br />Indeed it does, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” (Mk. 10:13-16) in the sense that unaccountable souls need no salvation, and we need to be humble and trusting as children to be part of the kingdom of God. <br /><br /> <i>If Baptism is "initiation rite into the Christian faith and into the Christian church" (from your source), then it would be quite necessary to baptize infants! </i> <br /><br />Baptism is "initiation rite” into the Christian faith, but in Scripture this applies to those who must and can believe, else aborted infants would need to be baptized. The Lord's supper, properly understood and practiced, is also a participation on the Lord's death,but infants do not take part in it. And as baptism is a symbolic rite, it does not obtain salvation, although that may be the occasion in which one makes the faith decision. And if Jn. 3:5 refers to baptism, then contrary to the import of the passage, it cannot be an absolute imperative necessity, as the Holy Spirit clearly affirms that souls can be born again before baptism.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24387546791341588522011-08-07T18:36:11.854-04:002011-08-07T18:36:11.854-04:00Firstly, thank you for the link you provided. It w...Firstly, thank you for the link you provided. It was very informative! <br /><br />Trent states that ”If any one saith, that, in ministers [even heretics], when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.”<br /><br />I would like to point out "at least of doing what the Church does." That is, as long as the minister performs such a act in accord with how it should be acted, then most definitely the Sacrament is valid. For example, in reconciliation if you here the words of absolution, you can be absolutely sure that you are forgiven by Christ regardless of what you think about the priest. If you have doubts, in is your own disposition (ex: you have plans to commit the same sin that night). Of course, this is exactly what you were speaking of ("repentant, whole-hearted faith"). I think the Catechism writes it more clearly.. <br /><br />CCC 1128: This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.”2 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.<br /><br />"Baptism was preceded by evident conviction of "of sin, and righteousness, and of judgment," (Jn. 16:9) and whole-hearted repentance faith, not just some assent to a creed"<br /><br />Much of Acts speaks of Evangelization of new nations. So, if one is far in enough in human development, or when one is "culpable", it is necessary for such a contrite heart and need for God. But when it speaks of Baptizing households, it does not clarify "those of age" or something as such. The kingdom of heaven in fact belongs to those as children. If Baptism is "initiation rite into the Christian faith and into the Christian church" (from your source), then it would be quite necessary to baptize infants! The scripturecatholic website lays out several verses, just ignore the little quibbles about protestants :) But, perhaps you don't agree that it is an initiation rite into the life of the church? <br /><br />Christ instituted marriage when he laid his life down for his bride, the Church, revealing what marriage is. Also, marriage in Islam is NOT the same as christianity, as your source stated. In Islam, marriage is not an oath before God, but a contract between people (you can check me on this one, but this was what was stated in my class about the Abrahamic faiths) In some ways the same view was held in the old Testament, because of "the hardness of their hearts". "This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:32)Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103354524419077151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50031129252851329242011-08-06T14:18:42.432-04:002011-08-06T14:18:42.432-04:002 b ctnd.
But rather than the "ex opere oper...2 b ctnd.<br /><br />But rather than the "ex opere operato" that some hold to, meaning grace is realized regardless of the condition of the instrument or the recipient, all such human means of instrumentally conveying grace depends on one or the other. Baptism requires repentant, whole-hearted faith, as does, and hearing and responding to the gospel may be efficacious even if the minister is not of the same right heart, while i think the laying on of hands in ministering the Spirit (Acts 8:15,16, 18-21; Gal. 3:5) and anointing of the sick (which in Rome basically gives more assurance of death than being healed) requires a right disposition of both, especially the minister. But then there are acts of grace, such as a man being healed because of the prayers and faith of others, or a man resuscitated by touching the bones of Elijah, (1Kg. 13:21) which might only require holiness of the instrument. <br /><br />Trent states that ”If any one saith, that, in ministers [even heretics], when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.” (Canon XI) Apart from whether the intent of the church is sound, this has warrant, and it is understood that is necessary for the act to be a moral one. However, but as the recipient cannot know the heart of the minister, so it is contended that the recipient cannot be assured, with the “certainty of faith,” that he has indeed received the sacrament. <br /><br />Apart from that, and the Scriptural basis for sacraments versus ordinances, and the definitions and numbers of both, while ex opere operato" is supposed to require a right disposition by the recipient, and a right intent of the minister, another issue is that in emphasizing the power of the church, and the importance of ritual, then what is typically effectually conveyed is that grace is given with nominal preparation, if at all, fostering perfunctory professions,and reliance upon the ritual apart from true relational faith. <br /><br />This has been also happening of late among evangelical believers who strive to coax a “sinner's prayer” out of someone, as they prayed such in experiencing regeneration, but they ignore the context out of which saving faith was realized, that of broken heart and contrite spirit” which God promises to regard. (Ps. 34:18) And the real labor of the instrument of God, besides prayer, is in bringing souls to see their desperate need for salvation, so that they earnestly want to know, “what shall we do,” “what must I do to be saved,” (Acts 2:37; 16:30) as in Scriptural conversions. It is revealing that Paul “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” to an unsaved Felix, and who trembled, but who spurned his day of salvation. (Acts 24:25) <br /><br />The context in which we see valid expressions in Scripture of what Rome calls sacraments is critically different than what is seen in Roman Catholicism. Baptism was preceded by evident conviction of "of sin, and righteousness, and of judgment," (Jn. 16:9) and whole-hearted repentance faith, not just some assent to a creed, while the commemoration of the Lord's death was denied to be just that, (1Cor. 11:20) not because the participants did not recognize that the elements were turned into, but because by their selfish actions they were not recognizing their hungry participants as members if the body, 1Cor. 11:19-32)the interdependence of which which Paul proceeds to expound upon in the next chapter.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62611185551479620162011-08-06T14:17:01.262-04:002011-08-06T14:17:01.262-04:00Also, they both administer the 7 Sacraments, which...<i> Also, they both administer the 7 Sacraments, which Christ has bound Himself to (but is not bound by) in the new covenant. "Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum" meaning "covenant". This means it is an assured encounter with Christ, and saving grace, because it has been promised to us. </i><br /><br />Short answer: <br /><br />1. It is not an assured encounter with Christ, even by Rome's criteria, and 2. besides the meaning and Scriptural basis and number of sacrament, the problem is the Scriptural means of effectually conveying realizing grace versus the perfunctory practices of institutionalized religion, while 3., the EOs would agree to the 7, though perhaps defining them somewhat different, but it is my understanding they do not limit the number to only 7. The Anglican also have 7. <br /><br />Long answer:<br /><br />As regards defining sacrament, I have never gotten into this issue much, and from what i read (http://www.kencollins.com/sacraments/sacrament-02.htm http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SACRAMENTS), which is not much, Sacrament does mean mystery, but as Latin has no word that would be transliterated into it, they used mysterium sometimes, but certain western Christian scholars like Tertullian and Jerome chose the word "sacramentum," which was used as<br /><br />1. “a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses; <br /><br />(2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly enlisted soldiers. in the Army when a new soldier took an oath of office, and was branded him behind the ear with the number of his legion.”<br /><br />The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia does not find sacrament in Scripture, and states that,<br /><br /> “Pliny (circa 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime" (Epistles x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence. It is in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century) that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and other rites of the Christian church.”<br /><br />The notion that there are seven sacraments has no New Testament authority, and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is as old as the human race.” <br /><br />I know that most Prots may not refer to sacraments at all, but as the Scriptural word "ordinances,” which usually counts only those which literally are enjoined upon all believers, that being baptism and the Lord's supper. I myself could include such things as the great commission, laying on of hands in ministering the Holy Spirit and also in ordination, and the anointing of the sick. One could add more practices, from greeting each other with a holy kiss to washing the saints feet. <br /><br />In one sense all obedience is “sacramental,” as God blesses obedience, but certain formal acts are required of all, in which grace is conveyed through or with others, and which affirms the interdependence of the body, in “co-dependance up the Almighty. <br /><br />2 b ctnd.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6259105566833760292011-08-05T17:00:41.965-04:002011-08-05T17:00:41.965-04:00The latin word for "oath" (which is invo...<i>The latin word for "oath" (which is involved in a covenant) is "sacramentum".</i><br /><br />The point is not what the Latin means, the point is what did the original Greek word mean that was used in scripture. <br /><br /><i>What this points to is how the early Christians understood the Sacraments.</i><br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />First, I guess that depends on how you define "early". The Latin translations came in the 2nd or 3rd century?<br /><br />Second, it's also possible that the Latin word chose is a bad translation of the original Greek. Go back to some of the recent posts on the the Latin Vulgate and you'll see where the Latin Vulgate had issues with translation.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37978781143453301762011-08-05T14:11:09.335-04:002011-08-05T14:11:09.335-04:00ah, i was slightly off. The latin word for "o...ah, i was slightly off. The latin word for "oath" (which is involved in a covenant) is "sacramentum". What this points to is how the early Christians understood the Sacraments.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103354524419077151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90010015326586528292011-08-05T10:34:17.223-04:002011-08-05T10:34:17.223-04:00Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum"...<i>Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum" meaning "covenant". This means it is an assured encounter with Christ, and saving grace, because it has been promised to us. </i><br /><br />sorry, my memory is terrible lately. But didn't we cover this recently with the Vulgate stuff.<br /><br />I think Sacramentum was used to translate the Greek word for "mystery". So your use here is likely extending the true scriptural meaning too much.<br /><br />Maybe PBJ will follow up.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38016305209643450502011-08-04T15:23:11.918-04:002011-08-04T15:23:11.918-04:008 ►
It is fully in accordance with the nature of ...8 ►<br /><br />It is fully in accordance with the nature of Faith that in religious matters every form of coercion by men should be excluded. — Dignitatis Humanae <br /><br />That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, "Exsurge Domino," 1520<br /><br />Pope Pius IX, Syllabus (of Errors):<br />[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." Section X, Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78.<br />http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM<br />------------<br />"In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances'". — Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech of 6 September 2007; Torture and corporal punishment as a problem in Catholic Theology, September 2005; <br /><br />...the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . — Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Red Cross (Geneva, June 15, 1982). <br /><br />Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html<br /><br />[Condemned articles of J. Hus]: 20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm<br /><br />Those who have been detected, even by slight proof, to have deviated from the doctrine of the Catholic religion ought to fall under the classification of heretic and under the sentences operating against heretics. (Pope Innocent IV, "Registers of Innocent IV," Berger, Paris:1881)<br />-----------<br />Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.<br /><br />“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica <br /><br />"No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics" - Council of Laodicea.<br />------------<br />Canon 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with the doctrine, announce it, defend it when necessary, and be enabled to assume their role in exercising the apostolate.<br /><br />We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-51631.html <br /><br />Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher....PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2898604194899377362011-08-04T15:17:17.143-04:002011-08-04T15:17:17.143-04:007 ►
"The Moslems together with us adore the o...7 ►<br />"The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." — Lumen Gentium <br /> <br />RCC: 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]<br /><br />I confess that the Lord will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire the wicked who either did not know by way of the Lord or, knowing it, left it when seized by various transgressions, in order that they may burn without end. (Pope Pelagius I, "Humani Generis," April 1, 557 A.D.) <br /><br />Acts which spring from natural goodness have only the appearance of virtue; they cannot last of themselves nor can they merit salvation.(Pope St. Pius X, "Editae Saepe," May 26, 1910) <br /><br />He who is separated from the Body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life. (Pope Gregory XIV, "Summo Jugiter," May 27, 1832) <br /><br />Indeed, the Church deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism levelled at any time or from any source against the Jews — Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, "Nostra Aetate," Oct. 28, 1965 <br /><br />The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.(Pope Innocent III, "Epistle to the Hierarchy of France," July 15, 1205) <br /><br />It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, "De Regimine Judaeorum") <br /><br />Therefore, the Church reproves as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination against people or any harrassment on the basis of race, color, condition in life, or religion. — Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, "Nostra Aetate," Oct. 28, 1965 <br /><br />Religious communities have the right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word. — Declaration on Religious Freedom, "Dignitatis Humanae," December 12, 1965 <br /><br />It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen. From this stinking fountain of Indifferentism flows the erroneous and absurd opinion, or rather derangement, that liberty of conscience must be asserted and vindicated for everyone. This most pestilential error opens the door to the complete and immoderate liberty of opinions which works such widespread harm both in Church and State. (Pope Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos," August 15,1832) <br /><br />That every man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion is hereby CONDEMNED as ERROR. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, "Syllabus of Modern Errors,"December 8, 1864) <br /><br />If special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of the State, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected. — "Dignitatis Humanae" <br /><br />Error condemned: In this age of ours, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever. In certain regions of Catholic name, it has been praiseworthily sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own. ope Pius IX, "Syllabus of Modern Errors,"December 8, 1864<br /><br />Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): "[It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus Issued in 1864, Section VI, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTMPeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30723883385973427072011-08-04T15:16:08.973-04:002011-08-04T15:16:08.973-04:006 ►
Let me here address your request,
Oh, and ...6 ►<br />Let me here address your request,<br /><br /> <i> Oh, and yes I most definitely want examples of the Church making a mockery of the word "reformulate."</i> <br /><br />This would be extensive, and again, would take many 4,000+ character posts, but many can be seen from your separated Traditional Catholics, as here )http://www.reocities.com/militantis/vatican2.html), so i will briefly post just a representative excerpts of few of things that have changed, or have been reformed, though such have more than one quote to back them up.<br /><br />Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: <br />“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html <br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38<br /><br />...that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed "ex cathedra" (infallible).<br /><br />The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot be adored except within her fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved. (Pope St. Gregory the Great, "Moralia," XIV:5)<br /><br />Neither the true Faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856; cf. also OUR GLORIOUS POPES, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Cambridge, MA: 1955, p.168)<br /><br />RCC: 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:...Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]<br /><br />[This absolves those who are convinced she is not, but have been baptized in Christian faith.]<br /><br />..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...<br /><br />They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.<br /><br />...those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.htmlPeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30520098933160054692011-08-04T15:15:04.523-04:002011-08-04T15:15:04.523-04:005 ►
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submis...5 ► <br />“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..<br /><br />“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” <br /><br />“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )<br /><br />Rome can claim Scriptural warrant for such declarations, but that is not the basis for its authenticity, and the infallible nature of her pronouncements does not necessarily extend to her arguments or reasoning behind it, which is a matter of interpretation. As is whether such a pronouncement is infallible (potentially multitudes: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf) and their meaning to some degree. And as is how many the verses the infallible magisterium has defined. <br /><br />“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” — Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40. (Ask me for more documentation of these statements if you want them, space being limited here due to max. word count) <br /><br />Rome can claim that “It is unlawful to differ even by a single word from apostolic doctrine", (Pope St. Leo the Great), and can claim <a href="http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf" rel="nofollow">unanimous</a> <a href="http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/ray4intro.html" rel="nofollow">consent</a> of the fathers for their doctrine (while also making good use of <a href="http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html" rel="nofollow">forgeries</a>, but while we can appeal to Scripture and history and the writings of church fathers all we want in showing Rome's claims to be false or in error, all of which is dismissed based upon her autocratic claim to be the infallible interpreter of all such. Thus the teaching of one of your most noted theologians,<br /><br />“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...” <br /><br />I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.<br /><br />It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” — Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.<br /><br />Thus rather than doing as the noble Bereans exampled, with that kind of heart, examining preaching of the word in the light of what has been established as the Word of God, we are called to implicitly submit to Rome, at least when it has spoken infallibly, presuming one knows. And how much one may dissent in non-infallible teachings, which are said to make up most of what Roman Catholics believe and practice, is another matter of interpretation.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47584007496519094122011-08-04T15:14:23.202-04:002011-08-04T15:14:23.202-04:004 ► Technically, the early Christians discerned a...4 ► <i>Technically, the early Christians discerned and decided which Scripture to include and which not to include (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), so the content was decided by the magisterium. </i> <br /><br />Wrong; well over half of the Bible was already established as Scripture before there was a church, and while most of the 66 books we now have were basically settled early on, dissent remained among scholars within the Roman church right into Trent. And which, after debate, provided the 1st and final infallible canon for Roman Catholics, 1400 years after the last book was penned. And the canon that it ratified was apparently not exactly the same as Hippo or Carthage, which were not ecumenical councils, and thus were not infallible. And the EO infallible canon is not the same as the Roman Catholic infallible canon, both of which are based upon sola ecclesia. <br /><br />See the series “Underwhelming Majority at Trent” by Carrie on the sidebar at BeggarsAll, and or a shorter summation by me here. <br /><br />Evangelicals can have certitude (the Catholic Encyclopedia actually has an interesting article on that subject) of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible being Scripture like as believers could in the time of Christ, based upon their qualities and attestation, which is how a man of God is established as being one, and which is how one can have assurance that he/she has eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13) <br /><br /> <i>Certainly, you can use scripture itself to check for contradictions. But it also must line up with Tradition, as they during the first few centuries. </i> <br /><br />Just the opposite! To do otherwise negates the distinction between the two, as Scripture has been established as the wholly inspired Tradition, most of it before Christ, and by nature the virtual bottomless amorphous source of unwritten tradition needs to be examined by an objective authority, that being Scripture, which is what the Lord did in refuting the Pharisees who made the “tradition of the elders” binding upon Jews. (Mk. 7:1-13) <br /><br />Catholics argue here that Jesus was only rebuking false tradition, but using Rome's formula for declaring infallible truth they easily could have asserted these things were valid interpretations of Scripture, or as not really contradicting it, and some verses could be employed to extrapolate such, which Roman Catholics attempt to do for such things as praying to the departed, after the tradition of some of her elders. <br /><br />And to make oral tradition the judge of Scripture makes it a superior authority to it, while Rome effectively places herself as the supreme authority, which the Pharisees so presumed. But which claim, in Rome's case, is based upon her claim to be the one true church. In which she infallibly declares that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) criteria. <br /><br />Thus we have the approved teachings,<br /><br />“Once he does so [joins the Catholic church], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76, Benziger Brothers, NY, 1913. (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45232020045510103112011-08-04T15:13:14.397-04:002011-08-04T15:13:14.397-04:003 ►
Crazy enough the EO's are very close in ...3 ► <br /> <i>Crazy enough the EO's are very close in many teachings! I hope the two will reconcile one day! They do both have Apostolic Tradition. Unfortunately, this is something i need to look further into the history of. </i> <br /><br />Close, but you still have two churches claiming to be the OTC based upon their infallibility, and arguing that tradition and formal decent renders them such, while rejecting as churches (in the proper sense) those who look to the Scriptures as the only assuredly infallible source. <br /><br />Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.<br /><br />Comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, and unity by implicit faith in the decrees of a self-proclaimed magisterium is it not Scriptural, but cultic, but by not handling the word of God deceitfully but persuading souls by “manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God,” (2Cor. 4:2) results in those who want the truth, and those who search the Scriptures, finding salvation. And by such faith the church exists and has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and overcomes, (1Jn. 5:5) with a basic unity in core salvific truths, with its “unity of the Spirit,” (Phil. 4:3) Christ in them and they in Christ, while narrowing disagreement in attendant doctrines. <br /><br />This does not solve disunity, which Jesus promised, but it enables a unity that is Scripturally of the Spirit, as it depends upon His supernatural grace in manifest regeneration, and the power of His word, not force or self-proclamation. "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. " (1 Corinthians 4:20)PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78044748958840222692011-08-04T15:12:36.496-04:002011-08-04T15:12:36.496-04:002 ►
What Rome and institutionalized churches do no...2 ►<br />What Rome and institutionalized churches do not do is really preach the evangelical gospel which convicts souls of their damned and destitute state and in need of a “day of salvation”, that <i> because of</i> their works and inability to merit eternal life, they must cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His blood. (Rm. 3:9 — 5:1) And so follow Him. Instead, Rome typically treats its souls as being Christians due to salvation by proxy faith, through their sprinkling as infants, but conversion in Scripture was preceded by conviction “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) with repentance and whole-hearted faith being required for baptism. (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) <br /><br /> <i>And i think you know the distinction between "works of the law" and "works of charity. </i><br /><br />The idea that Paul's exclusion of works as the means of justification simply means the “works of the law” is an Roman Catholic apologetic that is their own private interpretation, not official doctrine as far as i know, and not all concur with it. <br /><br /> <i> But, you slant such things </i><br /><br />There is slanting on both sides, but we see slanting things as being certainly a most prevalent tactic among Roman Catholic apologists, and which James works to correct, especially about Luther (see sidebar). RCAs make sola scriptura to be to solo scriptura, and sola fide as negating the need for a faith that works, while giving us 33,000 denominations and marginalizing the formal divisions within Catholicism, as well as the greater disunity than among evangelicals. Etc. <br /><br />I am trying to show problems, but you would have to show me where this slanting is taking place, where it needs to be substantiated, versus it being your interpretation or feelings due to your love for Rome. Besides what Rome has stated there is personal experience. I myself am a former Roman Catholic, who was born again while still going to Roman Catholic Mass, and realized a vast inward and outward difference between the two states as a consequence, despite my low opinion of myself (and i still have far to go). And thus i sought to serve God there for about 6 years, and to find some fellowship (the closest to it was in the RC charismatic movement. And have spent years talking to, or attempting to, Catholic about salvation, by God's grace, but have no personal issue with Rome. <br /><br /> <i>But, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Tim 3:14-15) </i> <br /><br />Here we have another Catholic appeal to what is written, using private interpretation in seeking to convince us we are not to rely upon what is written as the supreme infallible authority, but the church. It is revealing how much weight must be placed upon a verse that RCAs seek to derived support for sola ecclesia from, when the words used cannot be said to mean more than support. The word for “bulwark” (hedraiōma) or “ground” in the Catholic DRB, only occurs here, and basically means support, as does stulos (pillar). (For what its worth, Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) refers to the Scripture, as being the ground and pillar of our faith. http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/scripture_tradition.htm)PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76242043386961522322011-08-04T15:11:25.634-04:002011-08-04T15:11:25.634-04:00you slant things purposely to make the sound worse...<i>you slant things purposely to make the sound worse than they are </i> <br /><br />This depends upon which side of the Jordan you are on.<br /><br /> <i> For example, "salvation by grace, versus earning it by moral merit." It is not a matter of "versus." We are saved by Grace, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church.</i><br /><br />In Rome's system, one is justified by “pure grace” in baptism, as he has nothing to offer, but it then becomes much a matter of “grace versus works” as appropriating salvation, as she teaches that by God's grace, dispensed through Rome, one does works that merit eternal life life (“salvation by grace through merit”), and while she attempts to define “merit” as a recompense because of God's faithfulness in His grace, it fosters faith in one's own works and the power of the Roman church. <br /><br />Canon 32 states,<br /><br />"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified a...does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema."<br /><br />The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members..., (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2006) <br /><br />"nothing further is wanting to the justified to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547) <br /><br />“Hence, to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.” (Trent, Chapter XVI; The fruits of justification, that is, the merit of good works, and the nature of that merit)<br /><br />While it true that God looks at works in rewarding souls with eternal life, this is not because the works themselves morally earn eternal life, but they declare what manner of faith one has. We see works being rewarded, but eternal life being a free gift, not morally earned. What is earned is damnation, while what is freely given is the gift of eternal life life. (Rm. 6:23) While saving faith must be of a kind that effects obedience towards its Object, it is faith that is counted for righteous, justifying the UnGodly, not the Godly. (Rm. 4:5) <br /><br />The exclusion of “works of righteousness which we have done,” (Titus 3:5) as the means of salvation are not simply those works under the law, but any system in which souls are justified on the basis of their moral worthiness, as having earned such, else the gospel would simply be a better system of works salvation. And even that can be said to be by grace, as no one can do works at all except by grace. <br /><br />Therefore under grace, Abraham was justified before he was even circumcised, and thus the believer is made accepted in the Beloved on His expense and credit. “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” not because they are moral enough to be with God. <br /><br />Yet Abraham's faith was made “perfect” by works (Christ was “made” perfect through sufferings), as James (who appears to contradict Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4) states. This manifestation of fruit is the confessional aspect, (cf. Rm. 10:9,10) justifying one as having saving faith. “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) That is, they are justified because their God-given faith is a confessional type of faith, which instrumentally procures justification. And baptism is normally the first formal expression of saving faith — a “sinner's prayer” if you will, in body language — but it is the faith that procures justification, and thus a whole household was born again prior to baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9)PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82237193963758219512011-08-04T13:58:56.649-04:002011-08-04T13:58:56.649-04:00Also, they both administer the 7 Sacraments, which...Also, they both administer the 7 Sacraments, which Christ has bound Himself to (but is not bound by) in the new covenant. "Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum" meaning "covenant". This means it is an assured encounter with Christ, and saving grace, because it has been promised to us. This does not meaning the grace of God does not work in other ways outside the sacraments. so simple though!Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103354524419077151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70783101300267527852011-08-03T23:47:15.127-04:002011-08-03T23:47:15.127-04:00Oh yes, i guess it didn't seem to me that I wa...Oh yes, i guess it didn't seem to me that I was claiming it to be my own, but being that it was posted under my name it would imply so. You're right, I will not do that anymore. The comments I removed were things like "and that's why protestants are wrong for saying this," which doesn't help the argument. <br /><br />I apologize that I wasn't aware of the distinction between "sola" and "solo", but the effect of either seems to be the same in my understanding. <br /><br />"the magisterium decides both the content and meaning of Scripture and tradition then it is infallible" <br /><br />Technically, the early Christians discerned and decided which Scripture to include and which not to include (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), so the content was decided by the magisterium. Then when the dueterocanonicals came into question during the reformation, how do we discern whether or not these are infallible as well? Certainly, you can use scripture itself to check for contradictions. But it also must line up with Tradition, as they during the first few centuries. If "all scripture is God-breathed," then i definitely want these in my bible! Perhaps you have things in mind that are clearly contradictory between the deuterocanonicals and the rest of Scripture? <br /><br />You seem to know more about the Catholic Church than in what you say though. But i though you slant things purposely to make the sound worse than they are. For example, "salvation by grace, versus earning it by moral merit." It is not a matter of "versus." We are saved by Grace, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church. And i think you know the distinction between "works of the law" and "works of charity." And that the Church teaches salvation by faith but not by faith alone. But, you slant such things. Humility is walking in truth, and if you believe the Church is erroneous in some of her teachings, I'm okay with that and you have good points to make. But it is low to give a slanted truth, and to me it discredits a lot of truth that you speak.<br /><br />"Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced that the Word of God was normally written, and became the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims." I do not doubt that it was used for this purpose. But, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Tim 3:14-15) <br /><br />Crazy enough the EO's are very close in many teachings! I hope the two will reconcile one day! They do both have Apostolic Tradition. Unfortunately, this is something i need to look further into the history of.<br /><br />Oh, and yes I most definitely want examples of the Church making a mockery of the word "reformulate". I am interested in truth, and if you think this is the truth, I certainly am interested! But yes, citations quite necessarily. I checked out the other one, but ya the sight is not necessarily reliable in itself i may check what its claiming though.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103354524419077151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-15628881138197981252011-08-03T16:31:00.777-04:002011-08-03T16:31:00.777-04:00I thought i posted the below but do not see it
Ou...I thought i posted the below but do not see it<br /><br /><i>Out of humility, I happily barrow other sources. Are you telling me that you've never gotten another's input on scripture? Of course not. </i> <br /><br />Again you are confusing things. There is a difference between deriving arguments from what you have read from others, which to a degree is normal (and just recently James had a post on the issue of plagiarism, defining which can be problematic), and lifting entire sections word for word from living authors without attribution, and presenting them as if they were your own, which definitely is plagiarism. But which at least on RCA <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/apologetics-for-masses.html" rel="nofollow">feels</a> is OK, at least privately (where it is less likely to be exposed), and perhaps in a more limited sense.<br /><br /> <i>but deleted unnecessary comments not don't contribute to the discussion, such comments that you include </i> <br /><br />Which ones were these?<br /><br /> <i> What you are arguing is that Scripture is a necessary instrument, not that it is the sole authority, which is what i asked.</i> <br /><br />No, Sola Scriptura is not SolO Scriptura, which is the false premise of your borrowed argument which it depends on, and is a common one, bu if you read my responses you should have seen that i did not argue that Scripture is the only authority, for it affirms the authority of the magisterium, as well as the need for reason, and the usefulness of commentary and history. But what “sola” means is that Scripture is alone as being the supreme authority for faith and doctrine, and is what tradition and preaching and judged by. <br /><br /> <i>I never said tradition was the sole authority either, which you also seem to have the idea of. It is both, </i> <br /><br />Rather, i stated that you were “invoking Paul's reference to traditions in order to establish sola ecclesia (the only other real alternative).” — 5:01 PM, July 31, 2011 <br /><br />That is what you have argued, that since the magisterium decides both the content and meaning of Scripture and tradition then it is infallible, by which logic we must submit to the Jews who gave us most of Scripture, as well as the Messiah. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) But essential faith was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium of them who sat in Moses seat, as God raised up men (prophets) from without it, who did not have the stamp of formal Levitical transference of office, but whose authenticity was based upon Scripture and the power of God. <br /><br /> <i> but my question is: Where does scripture say "sola scriptura"? </i> <br /> <br />I answered this already in accordance with what it means. Only one transcendent material source is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, that being Scripture, thus being infallible, and by which all else is judged by. No where does Scripture affirm that whatever the church magisterium shall teach on faith and morals to the whole church will always be infallible. Rome seeks to derive this out of the promise that the Lord will be with the church till the end, and the faith shall not fail, and the power to bind and loose, however, God kept the faith among a remnant in the past without such an assuredly infallible magisterium, and also promises to believers that “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 1:8; 1Ths. 5:23) and the veracity of doctrine was not based upon conformity to Rome's formula, but upon Scriptural substantiation and attestation. <br /><br />Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced that the Word of God was normally written, and became the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims. <br /><br />In addition, the basis for Rome's sola ecclesia truth claims leaves us with two claimants to be the one true church, with both her and the EOs contending for that position, based upon their infallible interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40369564754790388372011-08-03T16:26:53.304-04:002011-08-03T16:26:53.304-04:00Such claims need a citation, else you could say th...<i>Such claims need a citation, else you could say that anybody said anything. It would be much more helpful for me too</i><br /><br />He might be referring to what is listed here. It seems to be documented, though it is an pro-homosexual, anti-Christ site: <br /><br />http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm<br /><br />But as for official (if not all infallible dogma) RC statements differing so much at times that it makes a mockery of the word "reformulate" to explain such, if you really want examples i can provide some.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85337635992123888512011-08-03T15:05:36.463-04:002011-08-03T15:05:36.463-04:00Out of humility, I happily barrow other sources. A...<i>Out of humility, I happily barrow other sources. Are you telling me that you've never gotten another's input on scripture? Of course not. </i> <br /><br />Again you are confusing things. There is a difference between deriving arguments from what you have read from others, which to a degree is normal (and just recently James had a <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-have-never-plagiarized-thing.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> on the issue of plagiarism, defining which can be problematic ), and lifting entire sections word for word from living authors without attribution, and presenting them as if they were your own, which definitely is plagiarism. But which at least on RCA <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/apologetics-for-masses.html" rel="nofollow">feels</a> is OK, at least privately (where it is less likely to be exposed), and perhaps in a more limited sense.<br /><br /> <i>but deleted unnecessary comments not don't contribute to the discussion, such comments that you include </i> <br /><br />Which ones were these?<br /><br /> <i> What you are arguing is that Scripture is a necessary instrument, not that it is the sole authority, which is what i asked.</i> <br /><br />No, Sola Scriptura is not SolO Scriptura, which is the false premise of your borrowed argument which it depends on, and is a common one, bu if you read my responses you should have seen that i did not argue that Scripture is the only authority, for it affirms the authority of the magisterium, as well as the need for reason, and the usefulness of commentary and history. But what “sola” means is that Scripture is alone as being the supreme authority for faith and doctrine, and is what tradition and preaching and judged by. <br /><br /> <i>I never said tradition was the sole authority either, which you also seem to have the idea of. It is both, </i> <br /><br />Rather, i stated that you were “invoking Paul's reference to traditions in order to establish sola ecclesia (the only other real alternative).” — 5:01 PM, July 31, 2011 <br /><br />That is what you have argued, that since the magisterium decides both the content and meaning of Scripture and tradition then it is infallible, by which logic we must submit to the Jews who gave us most of Scripture, as well as the Messiah. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) But essential faith was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium of them who sat in Moses seat, as God raised up men (prophets) from without it, who did not have the stamp of formal Levitical transference of office, but whose authenticity was based upon Scripture and the power of God. <br /><br /> <i> but my question is: Where does scripture say "sola scriptura"? </i> <br /> <br />I answered this already in accordance with what it means. Only one transcendent material source is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, that being Scripture, thus being infallible, and by which all else is judged by. <br /><br />No where does Scripture affirm that whatever the church magisterium shall teach on faith and morals to the whole church will always be infallible. <br /><br />Rome seeks to derive this out of the promise that the Lord will be with the church till the end, and the faith shall not fail, and the power to bind and loose, however, God kept the faith among a remnant in the past without such an assuredly infallible magisterium, and also promises to believers that “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 1:8; 1Ths. 5:23) and the veracity of doctrine was not based upon conformity to Rome's formula, but upon Scriptural substantiation and attestation. <br /><br />Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced that the Word of God was normally written, and became the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims. <br /><br />In addition, the basis for Rome's sola ecclesia truth claims leaves us with two claimants to be the one true church, with both her and the EOs contending for that position, based upon their infallible interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19744011899155260302011-08-02T22:55:22.525-04:002011-08-02T22:55:22.525-04:00reOut of humility, I happily barrow other sources....reOut of humility, I happily barrow other sources. Are you telling me that you've never gotten another's input on scripture? Of course not. If you would have gone about it alone, you would be completely lost. And I wouldn't expect it. So, yes I took the quotes straight from another site (but deleted unnecessary comments not don't contribute to the discussion, such comments that you include). <br /><br />What you are arguing is that Scripture is a necessary instrument, not that it is the sole authority, which is what i asked. I never said tradition was the sole authority either, which you also seem to have the idea of. It is both, but my question is: Where does scripture say "sola scriptura"? <br /><br />To Constantine: Such claims need a citation, else you could say that anybody said anything. It would be much more helpful for me too :)Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103354524419077151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42465131335026548162011-08-02T20:57:15.055-04:002011-08-02T20:57:15.055-04:002 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scriptu...<i> 2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, it would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring. also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books. </i> <br /><br />1. Your continued borrowed argument as i understand it, is based on presumption or error. <br /><br />You have “every” (pas) being definitely opposed to “all,” as if “we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all [pas] nations, for his name, " (Romans 1:5) cannot mean every nation. And that the gospel of Christ “is the power of God unto salvation to every (pas) one that believeth” (Rm. 1:16) really means not inclusively every one that believeth! <br /><br />And while theopneustos is only used of Scripture (in contrast to the commandments of men in Titus 1:14), you reject that it means Scripture inclusively because some of it was not yet penned, and thus (according to your rule) in the last verse it could only apply to those living, not every one that will believe. <br /><br />The reality is that there is nothing here in the Greek that renders this to be less than inclusive of all that is Scripture, and the way Scripture is always invoked as authoritative by men of God certainly affirms its plenary Divine inspiration, which you own church also affirms. <br /><br />2. You also seem to argue that this means every particular passage of Scripture is useful and exclusive, so that one could “rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word.” However, i do not see your conclusion following your premise, which seems to be that since every single passage of Scripture is useful, then it negates the need for complimentary corroboration. But even if this were only referring to single passages of Scripture as being useful, and not all, which is incongruous, it still would not sanction sola Matthew (or sola gospel, as some Catholic seem to prefer), but would mean that everything that God breathed is instrumental for the believer, but not in exclusion to the whole. <br /><br />I would return your borrowed argument for a refund, as such strained exegesis is born of commitment to Rome, not truth. Good night.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51885355528785007502011-08-02T20:56:19.214-04:002011-08-02T20:56:19.214-04:002 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is &q...<i> 2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.</i> <br /><br />This infers the polemicist is an expert in Greek, and understands that a word (ōphelimos) which only occurs in two other places in Scripture denotes something that is not mandatory, but optional? By such presumption you deny your own faith, to wit: “For bodily exercise is profitable [ōphelimos] to little: but Godliness is profitable [ōphelimos] to all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” (1Ti 4:8: Douay Rheims) <br /><br />Multitudes of antinomians will concur that (a kind of faith that produces) Godliness/holiness is not mandatory to see the Lord (Heb. 12:14) <br /><br />Moreover, “profitable” is describing Scripture as an instrument, how it profits, not its nature as pertains to being essential. It is inconceivable that something that is breathed of God would be non-essential. As said, this word is only used in 2 other verses, and that it is use-full as an instrument as regards function does not negate the essential need of it, as is abundantly evidenced in its pages<br /><br />As for exclusive, Scripture is the only body of revelation that is declared to be all Divinely breathed, “theopneustos,” inspired of God, and the word of God as an logos instrument is uniquely described as "is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " (Hebrews 4:12) And Scripture is what is established as being the word of God, out of which “the word” is preached, the veracity of the latter depending upon the Scriptures . <br /><br />This does not mean that the Scriptures are formally sufficient to make man perfect, but they materially provides for the church, and are essential as an instrument whereby the church works towards "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: " (Ephesians 4:12-13)PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10690247252902134812011-08-02T20:55:46.789-04:002011-08-02T20:55:46.789-04:00I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive...<i> I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive, and I don't doubt that you do have.<br /><br />2 Tim. 3:14 - Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures</i> <br /><br />You are only copy pasting (word for word) refuted Roman Catholic polemics. (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-II, is this you?) <br /><br />When Paul exhorted Timothy to “continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” (2Tim. 3:14) he was referring to one whose preaching was established by Scriptural corroboration (Acts 17:2,11; 18:23) with its manner of attestation, (Heb. 2:3,4) not one who presumed formulaic infallibility, or or some nebulous unwritten “tradition of the elders' as being equal to Scripture, but Paul's preaching of the Word of God depended in part upon corroboration with Scripture and its revealed means of establishing truth claims. <br /><br />And as said, normally the “word of God/the Lord was written and became the standard for obedience and establishing further revelation. And in so doing, it shows that the Lord mighty attested to those who added new teachings which were Scriptural, such as Moses, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. and holding to the supremacy of Scripture also establishes the principle of progressive revelation in adding to Scripture. <br /><br />But what Rome attempts to do is essentially add to the canon by making an extra-Biblical amorphous “tradition of the elders” to effectively be the same as Scripture, l teaching such as commands of God ike the Pharisees. And thus Roman Catholics must give implicit assent of faith to such things as the sinlessness or Mary, and her bodily resurrection. But Rome fails of the apostolic qualifications for adding to Scripture, and the authority of such teachings do not rest on Scriptural warrant and attestation, but upon the presumed autocratic infallibility of the magisterium to effectively declare truth by fiat. <br /><br />Moreover, in contrast to Rome's nebulous oral tradition, which depends upon Rome as its presumed seer, Scripture can be examined by all, and the only the reason you can invoke 2Tim. 3:14 is because it is part of Scripture, yet according to Rome we cannot have certitude by Scripture and its means of “manifestation of the truth,” but must render implicit trust in her dogmatic declarations. Which is effectively the same as cults do, versus the apostles. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10) <br /> <br />It is true that much of Scripture was first oral, but that does not make all that is oral to be the word of God, and the way writings were established as being God-breathed and infallible Scripture was not by official decree from an infallible religion, for 2/3 of the Bible was already so by the time of Christ, (Lk. 24:44), but was essentially established due to its heavenly qualities, complementarity, and divine attestation. See commentary in red (by me) and refs at bottom <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Commentary" rel="nofollow">here</a> . <br /><br />The problem is not with “traditions,” which we can be said to teach or practice as well, but whether a nebulous stream of such is the word of God and equal to Scripture, versus the latter being supreme and the authority which all is subject to.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.com