tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8414915824728332359..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Did Luther Believe in Saving Faith?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65781825392676970072015-03-02T10:41:50.274-05:002015-03-02T10:41:50.274-05:00James, I cant find an official position on Ephesia...James, I cant find an official position on Ephesians 2:8 for Rome. It is my understanding they have official positions on less than 10 verses or so. You are correct many Catholics fallibly interpret that as baptism or first installment of justification. Of course Catholics are sanctified before they are justified. My rule is read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Satan makes good look evil and vice versa. For example, scripture says one mediator between man and God, Rome says many. Scripture says one finished sacrifice that perefected, Rome says continual imperfect sacrifice. Paul says no works in justification, Rome gives them an integral part. The bible says Mary was a sinner with children, Rome says she was sinless with no children, and on and on. I dont know how they can read Ehesians 2: 8, that we are saved not by our works, and nothing from ourselves, then trust in an opposite system. 2 Thess. 2:11. Grace in Rome is simply a tool to merit salvation. Justification is the recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward in Rome, but for Paul it was a declaration about someone who was intrinsically and utterly unqualified. Ths Kkevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11817181228639581812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57056793629747177422015-03-01T13:03:53.951-05:002015-03-01T13:03:53.951-05:00James accepted.James accepted.kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11817181228639581812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27975357162544685212015-02-28T15:49:13.405-05:002015-02-28T15:49:13.405-05:00kevin said...
James, we certainly are saved unto g...<i>kevin said...<br />James, we certainly are saved unto good works, but 2:8 is hard to get around. Catholics only can deal with this on the instalment plan, this verse being the first. But saved is in the Aorist , and how does one get around not that of yourself, not of works. Thx k</i><br /><br />Kevin, your task is to research Rome's use of Eph. 2:8. I've never done this study. My guess would be that they link the verse to baptism. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35477577281753343792015-02-27T20:20:13.280-05:002015-02-27T20:20:13.280-05:00James, we certainly are saved unto good works, but...James, we certainly are saved unto good works, but 2:8 is hard to get around. Catholics only can deal with this on the instalment plan, this verse being the first. But saved is in the Aorist , and how does one get around not that of yourself, not of works. Thx kkevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11817181228639581812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82987481969310734532015-02-27T16:43:05.777-05:002015-02-27T16:43:05.777-05:00kevin said...
I always think of one verse Rome can...<i> kevin said...<br />I always think of one verse Rome can never get around. Epessians 2:8</i><br /><br />I've never done a study of Rome's interpretation of this verse- other than that her defenders point to Eph. 2:10James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32008255367493129582015-02-27T16:34:21.766-05:002015-02-27T16:34:21.766-05:00I always think of one verse Rome can never get aro...I always think of one verse Rome can never get around. Epessians 2:8, not that of yourself, not of works. Iow you cant have anything to do with it. Those that looked to their obedience and love to find favor with God Paul prayed for in Romans 10:1. Kkevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11817181228639581812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46895543886938558792015-02-26T17:00:47.164-05:002015-02-26T17:00:47.164-05:00steve said...
I think Sungenis is now on a quest t...<i> steve said...<br />I think Sungenis is now on a quest to find the real One True Church®. Clearly it's hidden from view.</i><br /><br />It makes perfect sense that Dr. Sungenis was at one time employed by Family Radio! James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33275147239928441582015-02-26T16:57:54.245-05:002015-02-26T16:57:54.245-05:00Any light on the source of both quotes, or did som...<i>Any light on the source of both quotes, or did some prelate expunge that part of a canon?</i><br /><br />Some of Luther's thirty examples of "Why the Pope's Books and His Disciples were Burned?" (LW 31) are documented, some are not. This surprised me when checking it, as LW is usually well documented. Of those that are documented, they are decrees. So, "the Right Reverend John England" wasn't alone in not finding a reference to what Luther was referring to. <br /><br />"The Pope does not derive from the Scripture, but the Scripture derives from the Pope, authority, power, and dignity" is the 30th article. If it's not a papal statement (which I don't think it is), it could very well be an examples of a statement from "His Disciples." <br /><br />My guess is this statement is a quote from the writings of the Dominican Sylvester Prierias:<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/luthers-roman-catholic-opponent.html<br /><br />In the link, See #3<br /><br /><b>He who does not hold to the teaching of the Roman Church and the pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic</b><br /><br />This statement would have been fairly fresh during the time of Luther writing "Why the Pope's Books and His Disciples were Burned," and if I recall correctly (but I'd have to check), it's from the book Luther directly responded to. See<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/10/luthers-statement-concerning-roman.html<br /><br />It would not surprise me that "the Right Reverend John England" could not find the citation in Prierias, because it's likely he didn't have access to this book, or even know of it. LW's lack of documentation is a bit more surprising. <br /><br />Again, I'm speculating here- but I'm probably correct that Luther's source for this comment is Prierias. <br /><br />Make all checks payable to: Beggars all Research and Development. Thx. <br /><br />JS <br /><br /><br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38101380654831576892015-02-26T14:26:37.632-05:002015-02-26T14:26:37.632-05:00I think Sungenis is now on a quest to find the rea...I think Sungenis is now on a quest to find the real One True Church®. Clearly it's hidden from view. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40383007627776387762015-02-26T13:46:52.897-05:002015-02-26T13:46:52.897-05:00Regarding hard to find quotes, "The Works of...Regarding hard to find quotes, "The Works of the Right Reverend John England" <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=KW7pcPb8Rv0C&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=The+Pope+does+not+derive+from+the+Scripture,+but+the+Scripture+derives+from+the+Pope,+authority,+power,+and+dignity.&source=bl&ots=s_-4ZaYELW&sig=8d5crIyScN3kq_jAQ0seQoJA2lo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nWDvVPOgIcu-ggTYh4TgCA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg" rel="nofollow">(pp. 278,79) </a> quotes Luther citing a canon which states,<br /><br />"The Pope does not derive from the Scripture, but the Scripture derives from the Pope, authority, power, and dignity."<br /><br />England says that "we do not have the canons from which this article is selected, yet we are disposed to credit the testimony of Luther" and gives reasons why, and then engages in interpreting the Interpreter, with a logic which seems to have been dealt with here at least <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/vicious-circle.html" rel="nofollow">once </a>. Elsewhere <a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781433505003.pdf" rel="nofollow">here, pp. 46-48 </a>. <br /><br />Any light on the source of both quotes, or did some prelate expunge that part of a canon?<br /><br />We do not a pope reasoned,<br /><br />"...Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church..."<br />- Providentissimus Deus, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893. <br /><br />And of course he knows God is the author of the doctrine committed to the Roman agency since she says He is, and that she is infallible in saying such. <br /><br />One even needs the infallible magisterium to know what Scripture consists of and means: Cardinal Avery Dulles: "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high." Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.htmlPeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.com