Written by a High Continuing Anglican, assessing Roman Catholic prayers to Mary.
A couple of illustrations. Here are a couple of very ancient prayers to the Virgin Mary:
We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
3rd Century; Oldest Known Prayer to Mary
Loving Mother of the Redeemer,
Gate of heaven, star of the sea,
Assist your people
who have fallen yet strive to rise again,
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator,
yet remained a virgin after as before,
You who received Gabriel's joyful greeting,
have pity on us, poor sinners.
Ancient Liturgy of the Hours Prayer\
Many, many more examples could be found. One would _never_ speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
And all the more so if you were telling the person to do this by mental prayer, which God would convey to Jones in the form of some sort of supernaturally aided ESP.
If one asserts that the saints' knowledge of our prayers is made possible by divine miracle rather than being due to a natural power, but if all liturgical practice encourages people to *take it as a given* that they can speak from anywhere on earth to Mary or the other saints and be heard, then the term "miracle" is irrelevant to the impression given. This is a "miracle" that is always done by God and can be taken for granted in practice to be in force--they will hear your prayers. The effect of all of this is, unfortunately, very much what I felt bound to assert in the main post. I speak here as someone who once was more sympathetic to prayers for the saints.
IMO it would be better for Catholic apologists to bite the bullet. Instead of telling Protestants that it's just like asking a godly friend for prayers, which feels like a bait and switch in light of actual Catholic practice (not just of ignorant Catholics, but uniform and church-endorsed Catholic practice), it would be better just to say outright: There is an admittedly thin but bright line in Catholic theology between what we do w.r.t. * [with respect to] the saints and worship. You Protestants should just get over your squeamishness over the thinness of that line, rely on its brightness, and cross the Tiber.
We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
3rd Century; Oldest Known Prayer to Mary
Loving Mother of the Redeemer,
Gate of heaven, star of the sea,
Assist your people
who have fallen yet strive to rise again,
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator,
yet remained a virgin after as before,
You who received Gabriel's joyful greeting,
have pity on us, poor sinners.
Ancient Liturgy of the Hours Prayer\
Many, many more examples could be found. One would _never_ speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
And all the more so if you were telling the person to do this by mental prayer, which God would convey to Jones in the form of some sort of supernaturally aided ESP.
If one asserts that the saints' knowledge of our prayers is made possible by divine miracle rather than being due to a natural power, but if all liturgical practice encourages people to *take it as a given* that they can speak from anywhere on earth to Mary or the other saints and be heard, then the term "miracle" is irrelevant to the impression given. This is a "miracle" that is always done by God and can be taken for granted in practice to be in force--they will hear your prayers. The effect of all of this is, unfortunately, very much what I felt bound to assert in the main post. I speak here as someone who once was more sympathetic to prayers for the saints.
IMO it would be better for Catholic apologists to bite the bullet. Instead of telling Protestants that it's just like asking a godly friend for prayers, which feels like a bait and switch in light of actual Catholic practice (not just of ignorant Catholics, but uniform and church-endorsed Catholic practice), it would be better just to say outright: There is an admittedly thin but bright line in Catholic theology between what we do w.r.t. * [with respect to] the saints and worship. You Protestants should just get over your squeamishness over the thinness of that line, rely on its brightness, and cross the Tiber.
*[with respect to] - my addition
Posts
582 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 582 of 582Since you tried to deflect to the ontological nature of the canon, I assume that's a concession that Sproul's remark is correct.
There was no deflection: i was simply describing how the very texts which the NT church was established upon were themselves established. If you want to negate the authority of those, and require an IM for them, go find it. And the infallible canon for most of Rome's history.
>""why should OT souls have heeded prophets who reproved the priestly powers that be, and why should 1st c.souls have followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected?""<
because the prophets and itinerant preachers performed signs and wonders to demonstrate their authority as revelation was still developing.
Which sitll is contrary to the RC argument that historical magisterium and instrument and steward of Divine revelation and recipient of Divine promises of God's abiding presence means such is infallible, and or must be submitted to. Under the Roman model, these itinerant preachers would be rejected.
Moreover, miracles was not the only reason, or sometimes even a reason that OT souls have heeded these itinerant preachers. And such attestation was only part of the manner of substantiation Scripture shows God giving to Truth, and was more for illiterate pagans in Acts, while the validity of such men as being of God was still ultimately to be tested by Scripture, as the devil can also do miracles, as Scripture attests.
The Reformers offer no such miracles, so I have no reason to take them seriously,
Then you would have no reason to heed John the Baptist, nor other "prophets, and wise men, and scribes" whom God sent to reprove those who sat in the seat of Moss, some of who, they killed and crucified, scourged, and persecuted from city to city, (Matthew 23:34) as did Rome to many whom God sent to reprove her proud presumption as well.
and further still since they reject divine authority to identify articles of faith, I have further reason not to take them seriously
Again, that is news to me. See how far you get as a pastor who denies the deity of Christ for instance in a typical fundamental evangelical denomination. If you want to deal with such things as the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom, then start with your own house .
You can invoke the paper conformity of Rome if you want, but God looks at what you really believe by what it overall effects and does, which in Rome is a very diverse beliefs on many basic things even among clergy.
What do you mean according to me? SS says Scripture is the sole final infallible authority in matters of faith. The extent/scope of the canon and that it is inspired and inerrant would seem to be a matter of faith. So it would seem that to be consistent with SS principles, you would need to demonstrate the extent/scope of the canon from some combination of self-attestation and inner witness.
According to you the means by which writings (and men) - which the church validated itself by - had authority due to a canon being above the canon, and thus you would have no reason to heed what was established upon them.
God can use more than one means to communicate to man, but once He establishes one as authoritative, then the souls are accountable to obey it. SS was not applicable in pagan morality or before Moses, or fully in its classic form (as it seems to me) before Rev. was finished, but as written and established, as is obvious, the written word became the transcendent authoritative source for obedience and testing Truth claims. And is the sole and sufficient (in formal and material aspects) standard.
>"then you also have effectively nuked the NT church. "<
The NT church that followed both tradition and writings right? Since SS wasn't operative during time of inscripturation. The church was operating for quite a few decades before the NT was completed. So I haven't nuked anything.
You have indeed, since you hold that you have no reason to take conclusions of those seriously which have no claim to infallibility, as it thus may be reformed. Yet this is how the church began, validating itself by manifestation of the truth, with writings and men that were established as being authoritative without an infallible magisterium determining that, thus why follow them?
And since it is held that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and to fulfill promises of God's supply of truth, presence and preservation, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, then 1st c. souls should have submitted to those who were said stewards, etc.
While you see writings and men being established as being of God without an infallible magisterium, but by veracity being ascertained on the weigh of evidence, as resulting in having no warrant to agree with them, and contrary to SS, it is what we see in Scripture.
Whereas a RC is not to examine the evidence to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but assent to them under the premise of the charism of assured perpetual formulaic infallibility of an office of unbroken (defined by her) formal descent, and indefectability (autocratically defined by her), with submission mandated on that basis. Which is cultic, not Christian.
“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;”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?" —“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 )]
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.]
"Paul was not given the keys to the Kingdom."
i) Now you're shifting ground from your original argument, which was an appeal to Petrine miracles. Nice to see your backdoor admission that your original argument failed.
ii) Your new claim is an argument from silence.
iii) You continue to confound a metaphor with what it signifies. One doesn't need to repeat a metaphor to repeat what it signifies.
But that's another one of those elementary distinctions which continually sails right over your head.
Indeed, full-blown repetition would be superfluous. Since Mt 18 takes Mt 16 for granted, we wouldn't expect it to reproduce all the same figurative imagery. Rather, it picks up where 16 left off.
Not to mention other Gospel parallels–which extend the same prerogative to the Apostles in general (Jn 20:21-23).
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:19).
"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 18:18).
For muddledheaded Catholics like Guy, the keys of the kingdom and binding and loosing are two separate prerogatives. Therefore, even though the power to bind and loose is granted to the congregation generally in Mt 18:18, Guy cluelessly assumes that Mt 16:19 still reserves a unique prerogative for Peter.
It does't occur to him that these are two (or three) related metaphors to express these same idea: locking/unlocking, opening/closing, binding/loosing. The power of the keys simply is the power to bind and loose, and vice versa.
"Binding and loosing" is epexegetical for the keys. The "keys" is, itself, a partial metaphor. The full metaphor is locking or unlocking doors, which, in turn, involves opening or closing doors. And that's further defined by the Rabbinic idiom of binding and loosing.
Scripture frequently uses multiple metaphors and synonymous parallels to vividly depict the same concept.
A further indication that these two metaphors are synonymous is their shared "heavenly" motif–with the contrast, by turns implicit and explicit–between heaven and earth.
Steve,
You brayed this.
"you keep repeating the same dumb argument,s after your dumb arguments have been repeatedly refuted."
Let me repeat the same dumb questions I keep asking;
1. How did Sola Scriptura work before the invention of the printing press. Were people blogging before the computer?
I know you refuted it by trying to feed me some baloney about secret enclaves where particular members were each assigned certain books of the Bible to memorize but I refuted your refutation by asking you some practical questions about just how one would actually implement this idiotic theory.
2. The other dumb question that has got me scratching my head is, how can Peter not be singled out if the passage says, 1. "Go tell Peter and the others....2. " Peter and the eleven..." or 3. Peter and the other Apostles..."?
Or if Peter is numbered first in every list of the 12, doesn't that make him chief? Especially if, as in Matthews list, it actually uses the word that means "chief" in conjunction with Peter?
You have repeatedly denied Peter to be singled out and refuted my dumb assertions that the Bible seems to say he was.
Your brilliant logic goes over my head. Could you please dumb down and explain how people who don't own Bibles ( and can't read ) can be Sola Scriptura folks and how Peter was just one of the boys although even PBJ says he was singled out for something, even if just a mediocre position.
I am a simple man, Steve. But you are a simpleton if you think you have refuted anything by your bluster alone.
"How did Sola Scriptura work before the invention of the printing press."
How did papal encyclicals work before the invention of the printing press?
"I know you refuted it by trying to feed me some baloney about secret enclaves where particular members were each assigned certain books of the Bible to memorize."
You keep reminding everyone that you don't know what a hypothetical is.
Before the printing press:
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient (Exod 24:7).
when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing (Deut 31:11).
There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them (Josh 8:35).
And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law (Neh 8:3).
Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him…Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? (Mt 12:3,5).
Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female (Mt 19:4).
Have you never read, “‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?” (Mt 21:16).
Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? (Mt 21:42).
Have you not read what was said to you by God (Mt 22:31).
So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand) (Mt 24:15).
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read (Lk 4:16).
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent a message to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, say it” (Acts 13:15).
For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him (Acts 13:27).
For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts 15:21).
And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea (Col 4:16).
I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers (1 Thess 5:27).
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture (1 Tim 4:13).
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (Rev 1:3).
Philip H. Towner, "The Function of the Public Reading of Scripture in 1 Timothy 4:13 and in the Biblical Tradition":
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/07/sbjt_073_fall03_towner1.pdf
Before the printing press:
"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things," Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.
If what was written was supreme in the manner you characterize, how would the NT and citations of approved oral tradition ever become part of the canon? The standard itself that you say they were subjecting their teaching to had not yet been set.
This is just one more example of the RC mindset that has Scripture beginning with the church, since the IM of Rome is essential for it. However, as said, most of the Bible was already held as being authoritative as Scripture before the church began, and it was this which the Lord and apostles invoked or implicitly relied on in establishing their Truth claims.
If what was written was supreme, why didn't God send OT prophets to rebuke Jews from following the oral Torah and to only heed the written word?
Because being supreme did not negate the oral torah, but made all oral preaching subject to testing by the est. word of God.
So do you test the extent/scope of the canon by that sole standard?
Sole supreme standard. It is, as what was written provides for souls recognizing men and writings as being of God or not. Once they are then the people are making themselves subject to them, but men are not wholly inspired of God in all they do (nor are popes even if infallible), thus they always are subject to Scripture.
Did that include the Oral Torah? If what Moses was given was the supreme standard, how did the rest of the OT and NT canon get added?
Answered before. But making all of what Jews hold as tradition equal with Scripture is no more safe or sound than what Rome holds as tradition.
>""But as the word of God was written, it became the supreme standard, as is abundantly evidenced.""<
Abundantly evidenced where?
Such as here . You can only deny this by requiring SS as being full realized in the extent of its sufficiency, but which was more material at that point, yet supreme.
SS wasn't operative during the apostolic era, so any citation of Scripture won't do any work for you since the writers couldn't have meant such, and authorial intent matters in your "ghm is the only proper way to interpret Scripture's meaning" exegetical approach.
Nonsense. That they held Scripture as supremely authoritative is clear, as is the case under SS, in which preachers orally preach Scriptural truths, and can do so without a Bible, yet they are subject to testing by what is written.
The apostles wrote Scripture and had divine authority. You again are arguing like they were and we all should be OT Sola Scripturists.
You again are arguing like they were their own authority, as Rome, versus that authority resting on the prior supreme established word of God, Scripture.
>""In contrast, while Scripture may be cited by Rome for support, it only assuredly means what she says, and cannot be allowed to correct her, nor is the weight of its evidence the basis for assurance by a RC, as with evangelicals.""<
Any non-believing Jew could make this exact argument to reject Christ and the Apostle's authority and interpretation/teaching of the OT.
Not so, as unlike Rome, the veracity of their Truth claims did not rest upon the premise of assured veracity, unless One is arguing from a prior established claim of being deity, which alone is shown to be worthy of implicit unconditional assent.
Even being able to speak prophesy or a Divinely revealed or inspired Truth does not translate into perpetual assured veracity whenever speaking universally on faith and morals. And even then, this does not constitute what one really believes or necessarily establish a leader who is fit to lead. it seems Balaam is in Hell.
Such as here
>"And as seen even in this thread, an RC appeals to the Bible merely as an accurate historical document in attempting to provide warrant for assent to Rome, as it makes the infallible mag. of Rome essential for knowing what Scripture consists of."<
I'm open to other ways that are *consistent and coherent* for identifying the canon and its attendant doctrines. SS so far has not proved a promising candidate. Rome at least is consistent in its claims and starting principles.
"Other ways" than making the infallible mag. of Rome essential for knowing what Scripture consists of and means? Try what is evident in history and Scripture, in which fallible souls with a fallible magisterium came to hold both men and writings as being of God, and authoritative, and which the early church often appealed to in establishing its Truth claims to them.
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures [not a merely accurate hist. doc.] that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
Many an atheist has come to recognize the Bible as being of God outside Rome as well.
And as Scripture provides for and sanctions this means recognition of what is of God, both Scripture and men, then this means is established under Scripture being supreme and supplying what is needed, materially in this case.
Of course we can investigate teachings to better understand them. But holding RC teaching ever hostage to my provisional opinions means I would not have submitted to RC's claims of divine authority in the first place - nothing would have changed pre and post submission.
Once again you act as if Biblical faith began with Rome, as you negate any warrant to non-infallible authority, which God and the Lord very Divine obviously enjoined!
But you insist on insisting that only infallible authority can be Divine and thus warranting submission. One more reason to avoid Rome.
It would be like an NT believer who accepted and submitted to Christ/Apostles' claims to authority, but then constantly held their current and future teachings perpetually in a dock to freely reject if his opinion changed.
Actually God allows for that, but the reason for their degree of success without lowering the standards as in Rome (and liberal Protestantism), and is that their claims had continuous and increasing warrant.
Rome is more form and self-proclamation than reality (and certainly i need to grow), and places herself even above Scripture, and claims a greater power than the apostles, without their qualifications and credentials. Yet the greater the claims then the greater the attestation
Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:18-21)
The true Christian is not a little pope, but seeks to persuade souls by "manifestation of the Truth," (2Co. 4:2), upon which the veracity of his truth claims must rest.
There's a certain equivocation concerning whether or not sola scriptura was operative in the OT or NT era.
What was always operative was the primacy of divine revelation. Moreover, sola scriptura was operative during the Intertestamental period.
The *principle* of sola scriptura was always operative inasmuch as the principle of sola scriptura is the primacy of divine revelation. The primatial authority of revelation is constant common denominator.
During the period of public revelation, you had prophets and apostles who spoke (as well as wrote) the word of God.
But revelation, in that sense, is now confined to past revelation, committed to writing.
Steve,
If you are so damn smart, how come dontcha' know that I never said Richard Whately addressed Papal Infallibility.
I appealed to him as a source only to show the absurdity of discounting the witness of trustworthy history.
I don't need an inspired book to know about Jesus founding a Church on Peter. Secular history works just fine for that.
Before approaching the Bible as inspired, I need to approach the NT as if it were just plain history.
From there, realizing Jesus' claims to be true infalliblly, and that in saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” he empowered the Church to speak in his name infallibly.
It then becomes not only reasonable but necessary for me to make an act of Faith in Jesus and the Church he established and all doctrines revealed through that Church.
One thing that Church teaches is that the Bible is inspired. She also teaches just which books comprise the Bible. I believe the Bible includes Tobit, Esther and James because the Church says so, not because I figured it out.
The Church and the Pope were infallible before the 1870 decree and people knew it.
God existed and was able to be found by the light of reason by even pagans long before the doctrine become the 1st article of the Creed or any papal pronouncement.
You keep making the dumb mistake of seeing circular reasoning in how the Church uses the Bible to prove the Papacy. You can't see the difference in accurate history and divine inspiration. Not all history is inspired Steve.
Now, go read Whately again and try to understand his point.
Steve,
"The *principle* of sola scriptura was always operative...".
Even when people didn't have Bibles?
Catholics might say that the Bible is *materially* sufficient.
But one needs a material Bible of paper and ink for it to be materially sufficient.
I know, I know, it's a dumb question. Be patient with me, Steve. I am really trying to understand what you see so clearly.
Steve,
"Hypothetical" does not mean "ridiculously impossible".
And thank for the quotes from the OT and Justin Martyr proving my point that the Bible was read TO the people by authorized ministers of the OT or NT Church.
Whether in the OT or the New, the Bible is meant to be read in the context of the Church.
Where do we see anybody taking on Moses, the prophets or the Levites with the Bible as a weapon?
By the way, Steve, why do the NT writers reference the Septuagint, including books not found in your Bible so much? Is sure looks like the Church founded by Christ always used a canon that you deny.
PBJ,
You and I see the Church quite differently, huh?
How did Paul write epistles to an invisible, disorganized group of folks.
How did he excommunicated the adulterer from a will o' the wisp organization?
Why did he ordain Timothy and others to shepherd an invisible body of believers?
What were the essential doctrines unanimously agreed upon by those remnants dispersed around Europe and Asia Minor?
Did they all use the same 66 books?
Once again, could you actually name one of these groups for me?
Steve,
Do you believe Obama exists? I mean the actual flesh and blood man?
I don't. Oh, for sure, I have seen a person on TV, or ( what looks like a person ) but what with the magic they can do with technology these days, I cannot be sure of anything on TV. The liberal media could have just invented him.
And they cannot agree on where he was born, Kenya, Indonesia or Hawaii. He has no close friends and no records from the schools he supposedly attended.
Americans had been yearning for a way of cleansing themselves of the collective guilt their racist past. The time had was ripe for a black man to appear out of nowhere and become president. The media took advantage of this and foisted the myth of Obama on the sheep hungry to grab onto it.
Do you believe in capital punishment?
How could anyone ever be sure of a man's guilt? Even eye witnesses are not infallible. Plenty of innocent men have gone to the gallows on the testimony of honest people swearing on the Bible that their witness was trustworthy.
Eye witnesses can at best say what they think they saw, right? There is always a margin of error as only God is 100% incapable of error, right?
What's my point? Only to demonstrate the absurdity of your charge that I myself must be infallible to trust an infallible Church or know which of the claimants to be that Church is real.
Steve,
And to think, not only does the Bible not teach SS, but it actually points outside of itself to extra-biblical authority.
I can hardly wait for you to deny the Bible teaches there exists sacred Tradition.
But that can wait until you explain how people could be Bible Only adherents before they had personal Bibles to argue from.
So it boils down to the magisterium, which boils down to the papacy, which boils down to the current pope. It isn't the magisterium in general, or even the papacy in general. In Catholicism, Christianity is whatever the current pope says it is.
To which the critical summation of the pope by Dollinger comes to mind:
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120
As with Mary, what RCs can extrapolate out of Peter's role hardly has limits.
Indeed, full-blown repetition would be superfluous. Since Mt 18 takes Mt 16 for granted, we wouldn't expect it to reproduce all the same figurative imagery. Rather, it picks up where 16 left off.
Steve, you mean what the "keys" mean is not Peter at the gate of Heaven:
"I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see...." — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2
If not quite correctly Catholic (you do have to go to Purgatory to become good enough - and atone for sins - to enter Heaven) it is too typical.
Steve wrote, Before the printing press:...
There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them (Josh 8:35).
Good list, among others .
Guy goes,
PBJ,
You and I see the Church quite differently, huh?
Indeed, and none of the answers to your questions are contrary to my beliefs in the NT church under real apostolic authority, not that of Rome, and only supports my view of Peter, that which certain Catholic scholars find, as shown.
You continue to throw up flack, as a result of me being over the target, and as said before,
Let me know when you can prove your fundamental premise that without an infallible magisterium one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, or has any way to make correct theological statements, and that supremacy necessarily translates into infallibility.
Until then you have taken too much of my time.
Yes, your argument is viciously circular. You begin with your fallible belief in your infallible church. You then appeal your allegedly infallible church to confirm your fallible belief. But the whole process of reasoning is fallible from start to finish.
Pity your too dim to see the obvious. It isn't hard.
PBJ,
I think I have the example you ask for as to why we need an infallible authority outside of scripture to settle disputes on certain Bible passages.
You say the fact that the angel told Magdalene to, " Go tell Peter and the others" shows Peter to be singled out from those others.
Mr. Steve says that because Magdalene is told to tell "the others" too, Peter is therefore not singled out at all.
Who's right? Not both of you.
Now, before you say that this is not an important point of salvation, let me ask you, " Who says?"
Who decides what is central and what is peripheral?
Exactly how many denominations are there now, all claiming Bible Alone?
"And thank for the quotes from the OT and Justin Martyr proving my point that the Bible was read TO the people by authorized ministers of the OT or NT Church."
i) Since this is the very first time you said it here, that doesn't prove your point. You don't get to say something in response to something I said, then backdate your belated response as if that's something you were saying all along. Your ex post facto claim is demonstrable false.
ii) The lector needn't to be an "authorized minister" of the OT or NT church to be able to read Scripture aloud to a congregation. And notice that the wording of Rev 1:3 (to take one example) is entirely generic. There's no "office" of lector.
"Whether in the OT or the New, the Bible is meant to be read in the context of the Church."
As usual, you're doing a bait-n-switch. To begin with, Protestants have churches, too.
Moreover, you haven't begun to show how knowledge of Scripture via the public reading of Scripture is even slightly incompatible with sola scripture.
"Steve, why do the NT writers reference the Septuagint, including books not found in your Bible so much? Is sure looks like the Church founded by Christ always used a canon that you deny."
We can always count on you to dutifully check every box of every dumb argument Catholic apologists recyle. You constantly act like you're springing some new objection on Protestants.
We have no 1C copies of the LXX containing the Apocrypha.
Steve,
I believe God to be infallible. I hope you do too.
Does the fact that our minds are capable of error mean that God is not infallible?
Does the fact that our minds are capable of error mean the Church is not infallible?
This is what highly educated people like you call a non sequitur.
Your *argument* never breaks out of fallibility.
Steve,
"The lector needn't to be an "authorized minister" of the OT or NT church to be able to read Scripture aloud to a congregation"
No, but every one of the examples you offered was of the Bible being read to the people by someone delegated to do so by a legitimate authority.
The Bible is intended to be be read and heard publicly, and that includes Revelation.
What we call today the "New Testament" was originally called "The Books of the New Testament". That's because they were read during the New Testament Sacrifice/liturgy.
The Gospels and epistles were primarily meant to be read to congregations.
I am not going to stop beating until I know the horse is dead.
Nobody in OT or NT times had a Bible of their own.
As I was downtown today for a concert at the Gulbenkian, and as I get tickets for free to the museum, I decided to take another visit to see the hand copied and illuminated Bibles on exhibit I mentioned some days ago. I am more convinced than ever that your position is so ill thought out. The Bibles I saw would have cost a kings ransom.
Before Gutenberg's time, and then not for decades after, would Bibles have been available to the common man.
Private reading of the Bible is fine and good, even encouraged by an indulgence for Catholics.
But private interpretation was never the intent. That is why you guys are so split. You and PJB can't even agree on what, "Go tell Peter and the others" means.
Yes, Protestants have church buildings but that is not what the Bible means by Church. The various churches mentioned by Paul or John all have a bishop and were part of the overall Catholic Church.
"We have no 1C copies of the LXX containing the Apocrypha."
And how about copies without the deuterocanon?
And we do indeed have copies of some of those disputed books in Hebrew after all. The Dead Sea Scrolls say so.
"We can always count on you to dutifully check every box of every dumb argument Catholic apologists recyle. You constantly act like you're springing some new objection on Protestants."
Believe me, I know my arguments are not new. And believe me, yours aren't either.
So, once again, you answer by belching out how dumb my question is about SS before Gutenberg. But that is not an answer. Just and attempt to change the subject.
I am waiting for an answer. Something besides your pathetic yarn about people memorizing books and becoming "living Bibles".
By the way, were they memorizing the KJV version?
I think I have the example you ask for as to why we need an infallible authority outside of scripture to settle disputes on certain Bible passages.
What i asked was for you to prove your fundamental premise that without an infallible magisterium one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, [n]or has any way to make correct theological statements, and that supremacy necessarily translates into infallibility.
Showing the need to settle disputes no more proves infallibility was the solution nor that it was needed, any more than it proves that it was needed elsewhere in Scripture.
You say the fact that the angel told Magdalene to, " Go tell Peter and the others" shows Peter to be singled out from those others.
Mr. Steve says...Peter is therefore not singled out at all.
Who's right? Not both of you.
I did not mention any resurrection incident or Mary Magdalene, but if you think it serves your purpose lets deal with it.
All this shows is the need for an arbiter or judge to settle a case, and which God thought of a long time ago
What is wrong with this solution?:
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;
And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
...According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
Seems rather sure and determinative to me, and more effective i would say than what Rome has shown after being deprived of her unScriptural use of the sword of men.
You argue for the viability of an indisputable magisterium, which is what cults and dictators engage in, but which is not the Scripture NT means of unity.
You can only argue for an IM by taking a great leap of extrapolative logic based upon the premise that it is necessary for transmission, discernment, and preservation of Truth, faith and a people, but which never was necessary for God, as hitherto explained.
Instead, God often raised up manifest men of God from without the magisterium to provide and preserve Truth, and thus the church began upon the foundation of such, of the Lord and apostles and prophets, not the magisterium.
The Acts 15 issue itself was not settled upon the premise of assured infallibly, with Peter only making a recommendation based upon the gospel message that was established upon Scripture, of the Christ who did likewise for His mission, and which Paul was already preaching. And which recommendation they favored, and James validated with Scriptural warrant and provided the final judgment on.
Thus while the provision and viability of the magisterium is clear, nowhere was it promised Roman assured infallibility,and which constitutes thinking "of men above that which is written" (1Co. 4:6) and is divisional.
Secondly, even if an IM was Scripturally needed to settle disputes, Catholicism abounds with failure to do so, and it rarely defines specific texts, while what it does say is often subject to varying degrees of interpretation itself.
Thus you have the interpretation of V2, and the interpretation of it, and teachings before it. Then people look to the current pope. With open eyes, closed eyes or sideways.
"We have no 1C copies of the LXX containing the Apocrypha.".
Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,
these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd
"No, but every one of the examples you offered was of the Bible being read to the people by someone delegated to do so by a legitimate authority."
I gave you a specific example to the contrary: Rev 1:3.
The only prerequisite to be a lector is literacy.
"The Bible is intended to be be read and heard publicly, and that includes Revelation."
I gave examples of that very thing.
However, since the modern Church of Rome permits private ownership of Bibles, you're accusing your own denomination of disregarding how the Bible was intended of function.
"That's because they were read during the New Testament Sacrifice/liturgy."
Nice anachronism.
"The Gospels and epistles were primarily meant to be read to congregations."
Which is entirely compatible with sola scripture.
"I am not going to stop beating until I know the horse is dead."
You're not beating a dead horse–you're riding Rocinante in your Quixotic quest to attack windmills.
"Nobody in OT or NT times had a Bible of their own."
Even if that were true, that's not a precondition of sola scripture.
"Before Gutenberg's time, and then not for decades after, would Bibles have been available to the common man."
The Bible was available via the pubic reading of Scripture. Have you always been this dense?
"But private interpretation was never the intent."
In that case, maybe you should heed your own advice and stop presuming to tell us what you think the Bible really means.
"You and PJB can't even agree on what, 'Go tell Peter and the others' means."
PJB has quoted many Roman Catholic scholars whom you disagree with. Private interpretation runs amok in the church of Rome. Your a case in point.
"The various churches mentioned by Paul or John all have a bishop and were part of the overall Catholic Church."
Your anachronistic assertion.
"And how about copies without the deuterocanon?"
Notice that Guy is changing the subject.
"And we do indeed have copies of some of those disputed books in Hebrew after all."
Notice that Guy's changing the subject.
"I am waiting for an answer."
You were given an answer. The fact that you lack the intellectual aptitude to comprehend the answer is not my problem. Perhaps you should consult a neurologist about your mental impediments.
PBJ,
"but would you agree that being wholly inspired of God makes God the actual author"
Rome treats Scripture as special because of its unique inspired status. Rome's decrees are not inspired - public revelation has ceased. But just because God is not inspiring new revelation in no way entails He has not ordained an authority to safeguard it.
"Or does something merely being True have the same power as that which God breathes?"
Physics is true. But natural revelation is not the same as supernatural revelation - if it was, hello Pelagianism and faith would be reduced to rationalism.
"And do you know of any other body of Truth as comprehensive as Scripture that is the infallible word of God?"
Once again, you have to deal with holding consistent principles that allow you to reliably identify Scripture and its attendant doctrines (closed, inerrant, inspired) as more than just provisional opinion in the first place. No cart before the horse.
"Scripture provides for this discernment."
Scripture identifies the extent and scope of the canon and that it is "wholly inspired"? Can you tell me where that occurs? Can you tell me why it took centuries for recognition of the full canon to take place and why faithful men held differing opinions on disputed books? Why did those who you appeal to for recognizing the NT canon blow it with the OT canon?
"And where did i argue that, rather than affirming that the NT affirms some of tradition as well as some of what pagans wrote? But with Scripture being what it is proved by."
I see - so tradition that was later inscripturated was first subject to being proved by Scripture. So the later inscripturated Scripture is completely superfluous; we should all be OT SSists.
"But while Scripture reproved some of tradition as erroneous, the latter never reproved the former."
Tradition reproves erroneous interpretations of Scripture, as apostolic tradition did with Jewish interpretation.
"but the point remains that they established their truth claims by Scripture, explicitly or implicitly."
Yes and RCism appeals to Scripture explicitly and implicitly. So Apostles and Christ citing Scripture does nothing to establish SS - if it did, the NT canon is superfluous.
"Then you are not comprehending what i argued, which was that NT Truth claims were tested by and established upon the OT"
Yes, so the NT is superfluous. If OT was supreme during NT times, the NT truth claims could never be inscripturated.
"and which provides for further writings being given and discerned as being Scripture"
So OT Scripture is supreme in establishing more Scripture? How can a supreme standard be a standard when it is in the process of being changed?
"I am not arguing for formal sufficiency of the OT, nor know any SS advocates that do. "
Then you need to alter your argument and stop trying to have it both ways.
"due to the magisterium effectively being supreme, since Scripture only consists of and assuredly means what she says it does, and then making Scripture equal to what it deems the word of God in amorphous tradition. "
Which is exactly what a Jew could say to Christ/Apostles to justify his rejection of their authority. Your whole line of argumentation is like that.
(cont)
"A false dilemma. No, he did not tell them to do as a RC would, that of consulting the magisterium and follow them. "
No, he told them to follow his authority. Which is what RCism does. No one would follow Christ if he wasn't at least making the claim that warranted following him in the first place. Rome is making the claim at least to divine authority and infallibility. Protestantism actively rejects it. So no one has any reason to follow its claims in the first place.
"Again, you need to read the argument in context."
I've read it in context. You keep flip-flopping to try to have it both ways. If you don't agree with White (who is simply encapsulating mainstream Protestant thought), then I'm sorry you're out to lunch.
"Thus she is effectively the supreme irrefutable authority, as if she was Scripture. "
Again by this logic, Christ/Apostles were negating the authority of OT Scripture in offering their infallible teaching/interpretation and later inscripturation which you claim they weren't.
"The point is if we are to assent to divine revelation, it must be taken on the authority of another - it is supernatural, not natural revelation.
But which excludes non-infallible authority, and thus it remains that you reject Christ's command of conditional obedience to non-infallible authority and its validity, And thus OT obedience."
Um, no. Non-infallible authority isn't defining divine revelation. Governors and police officers aren't prophets. So I've excluded nothing. And you evade the point.
"I knew the evang churches in my experience were/are not libertarian. "
Irrelevant to the point that liberal protestants and conservative protestants are equally justified and consistent with Protestantism's starting principles.
"But the early church established itself based upon Scriptural substantiation"
The early church was operating for decades before Scripture was complete. Again, appeal to Scripture does not establish SS.
(cont)
As to your Manning quote, BC Butler replied in "The Church and Infallibility" to Salmon's use of it:
"[Citing Manning from same work]: "No Catholic would first take what our objectors call history, fact, anquity, and the like, and from them deduce his faith....These things are not the basis of his faith, nor is the examination of them his method of thoelogical proof"
"Let no one suppose that Catholic theologians....for a moment either abandon the facts of history as insoluble, or conceive that they are opposed to the doctrines of faith"
It does not require great reflection to see that Manning in these passages is not abandoning either Scripture or Tradition in such a way as to assist Salmon's argument. Indeed he denies that Catholic theologians conceive that the facts of history are opposed to the doctrines of faith. And that this is also the attitude of ecclesiastical authority was seen clearly in the violent reaction against the attempt by certain Modernists to surrender the historical roots of Christianity. What Manning contends is that for an individual or a local Church to appeal from the verdict of the Church to the allegedly contradictory evidence of the Bible or history is not permissible. Clearly it is not, if the Church's infallibility is conceded. It is exactly comparable to a Jew's rejection of the teaching of Christ on the alleged ground that this teaching contradicts the Old Testament revelation. There is no sinister infidelity to history in Manning's words. But they raise the question, which I propose to consider in the next chapter, of the relation between arguments which bring a man to the point of accepting the Catholic claim and the basis of his faith once the claim has been accepted."
So maybe you can revise your polemical rolodex for the future.
"The scope of which does not really change the gospel,"
You mean your provisional opinion of what the gospel is. The point is the confessions are revisable en toto because they shoot themselves in the foot with their own claims.
"Accepting additional writings as being of God does not make the standard reformable as in changing its authority and that of her doctrine. "
Really? Adding books to the canon is not reforming the standard? Taking verses out is not reforming the standard? What would be reforming the standard then?
"since the (quite evident accepted) authority of these writings were established under non-infallible authority!"
Yeah so the authority of those writings is itself just a matter of opinion according to *that principle*. The authority of those writings is not just a matter of opinion according to Rome's *own principles* - because it claims infallible authority.
"But RCs do."
Of course they don't. They appeal to STM-triad. So it's perfectly consistent to appeal to T to help establish SM and M for ST and S for TM. There's no ladder being kicked - it's cemented in place. SS proponents climb up the ladder (such as Kruger's appeal to corporate consensus and apostolic authorship) then kick the ladder when they've reached the security of the canon. Doesn't work - no magic tricks allowed.
"Wrong. Protestantism was based upon the premise that its preaching was correct/authoritative on the authority of another, appealing to Scripture."
Have to identify Scripture consistently first. According to your starting principles, the scope/extent and inspiration/inerrancy of the canon is just a tentative opinion. It can only ever be that because Protestantism rejects divine authority.
Secondly, you then appeal to Christ/Apostles appealing to Scripture. Again, that does not negate the fact that they claimed divine authority as well. Your argument continues to make those claims superfluous.
"i was simply describing how the very texts which the NT church was established upon were themselves established"
Yes so the canon remains a fallible collection.
(end)
"See how far you get as a pastor who denies the deity of Christ"
So is the pastor offering his teaching as irreformable based on divine authority? To be consistent with Protestant principles he can't - just his ever-provisional opinion. That's why I have no reason to take him seriously.
"If you want to deal with such things as the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom, then start with your own house."
Rome defines boundaries. It's not a borg collective. There is room for development and discussion, but that does not entail there is no irreformable doctrine. Many examples could be adduced, and just one is sufficient to show the difference between Protestant and Roman claims.
"According to you the means by which writings (and men) - which the church validated itself by - had authority due to a canon being above the canon, and thus you would have no reason to heed what was established upon them."
The STM-triad is mutually interdependent and attesting. So once again we see how Rome is consistent with her claims. Protestantism is not. And inconsistency/incoherency is an indicator of falsity.
Your citations of Keating and Graham again illustrate the difference. In Protestantism, nothing changes before and after submission. An NT believer submitting to Christ/Apostles' authority would not be warranted in then perpetually holding their current and future teachings/interpretations in dock to his arbitrary threshold and level of acceptance according to his provisional opinion to freely reject as his opinion changed. If he did, he would not have actually submitted to their authority - nothing would have changed pre and post submission.
"However, as said, most of the Bible was already held as being authoritative as Scripture before the church began"
So we just need the OT right?
"Because being supreme did not negate the oral torah, but made all oral preaching subject to testing by the est. word of God."
So oral torah/preaching was tested by the established word of God, then became inscripturated to become the established word of God?
"Sole supreme standard."
Right - so any appeals outside of self-attestation and inner witness creates a canon above the canon.
"You can only deny this by requiring SS as being full realized in the extent of its sufficiency, but which was more material at that point, yet supreme. "
If it was material then the NT canon isn't needed. Material means the material has to be there in the first place. The White quote precludes you from appealing to Scripture to prove SS as no writer could've meant it according to ghm exegesis.
"That they held Scripture as supremely authoritative is clear"
Bye bye NT canon (again).
"Not so, as unlike Rome, the veracity of their Truth claims did not rest upon the premise of assured veracity"
It's exactly so. Your entire line of argumentation could be picked up by any Jew without change to reject Christ/Apostles authority. The veracity of their truth claims rested upon their divine authority. They appealed to Scripture of course - they would not have divine authority to contradict Scripture, just as Rome's divine authority does not contradict Scripture. Christ/Apostles were not Sola Scripturists, nor could they have been as White clearly sees but you can't.
Steve,
"In addition, your argument is a red herring. The Reformers weren't prophets. Signs and wonders are irrelevant in this situation"
Agreed - I was answering PBJ on his own terms. Maybe he'll take your advice.
"The fact that you deflect their arguments by broaching the question of miraculous confirmation is a backdoor admission that your side lost the argument."
No admission - if I appeal to one leg of support, that hardly means it's an exhaustive one.
"A sound interpretation of Scripture carries the divine authority of Scripture."
So sound interpretations that carry divine authority are infallible right? Why does Protestantism refuse to offer any then?
"Really? The deposit of faith can be added to?"
STM-triad guards the deposit of faith - that's the advantage of parallel authorities. And as you said, "To begin with, this is just a hypothetical."
"If we now had a 14th letter of Paul, that doesn't change the Scripture-only principle. It's not something other than Scripture. "
Scripture interprets Scripture and Scripture is the sole infallible authority is your rule of faith. I'm interested in knowing how that works if the recognized scope and extent of the canon is reformable.
"An additional Pauline letter wouldn't contradict Scripture. It wouldn't violate "Scripture interprets Scripture.""
Who says it would contradict Scripture? The NT doesn't contradict the OT. But does SS work with just the OT canon? Secondly this still doesn't answer how you establish the "irreformable" baseline standard to compare the new Pauline letter against.
"There's no justification for that demand. For instance, why should we insist on *irreformable* articles of faith rather than *true* articles of faith? "
Articles of faith are divine revelation. Divine revelation is true but not irreformable?
"Another artificial stipulation is what you posit to "warrant to the assent of faith.""
As I said, to put your faith into mere plausible opinion (whether it be true or not) is either sheer fideism or stark rationalism.
"I've documented cases, including from Catholic sources, where Rome reversed course."
Yes and atheists have documented cases, including from liberal Protestants, where Scripture is errant. Further, there are two relevant questions - whether Rome has actually reversed course and whether it has reversed course in such a way that damages or is relevant to infallibility.
"And if, for the sake of argument, we grant your contention, then you can't invoke Catholic criteria to disprove Protestantism. "
Exactly right. Which is why I evaluate it according to its *own claims and principles* - that's a fair non question-begging approach. You seem to freely admit it can't offer irreformable doctrines. Great.
"I didn't deploy a consensus argument to establish the canon."
Okay so the "God's people" stuff you were arguing before is irrelevant?
"Your denomination is increasingly dominated by liberals. You have a paper theory that's at odds with the facts on the ground."
Why did you forget your own advice - Even if your tu quoque were successful, proving that Protestants have a parallel problem does nothing to disprove your own. You sidestep the entire argument pertinent to the difference between Protestantism and Rome's rule of faith (and associated warrant) to deflect.
(cont)
"Once again, you're imposing your tendentious categories on me. It's sufficient that a teaching be true."
Let's play this out in NT times. If a Jew randomly falls to Christ's feet and starts following him even though he's heard nothing about his claims to divine authority, even though objectively he is right, would he have actually been submitting in faith? A person can hold that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Protestants get lots of things right. But they are just correct *opinions*. It never gets above that, due to the nature of the starting claims/principles - it shot itself in the foot before the race even started.
"And I admit the fallibility and inherent limitations of bishops, popes, church fathers, and scholastic theologians."
Of course, which is why RCs do not put faith in those.
"who must argue for their conclusions by appeal to reason and evidence. Whose process of arriving at their conclusions is transparent and accountable to the scrutiny of the reader. Scholarship is not a magisterium. Reading commentaries is not an act of submission. It's not an argument from authority. You're indulging in sloppy, boilerplate rhetoric."
Wonderful - so articles of faith are just reasonable conclusions. Faith is just rationalism. You weigh and evaluate all these evidences to come to your tentative probable "true" conclusions you assent to. It can never rise above that because of the very starting principles you agree to. It's a fallible scholary magisterium. You run around amassing all your commentaries and books touching on all the relevant fields and try to assimilate as much as you can and weigh all the conflicting tentative conclusions and arguments of these scholars with their varying presuppositions and analytical methodologies. Of course you will never become competent or an expert in all these fields. And even if you magically could, such would still just be your expert opinion (which is nothing more than the most erudite specialists can offer). So your conclusions remain ever-provisional.
"You're the one who's setting up an arbitrary threshold of acceptance before you submit to Christ, the apostles, and the prophets. "
Yes the arbitrary threshold that divine revelation is infallible and irreformable. Christ, apostles, prophets claimed divine authority. Seems like a reasonable threshold of acceptance then.
"If your target is the wrong target, then the fact that we miss your target does nothing to disprove or even undermine the Protestant position."
If Protestantism wants to admit it can't ever offer irreformable articles of faith and that it holds to a self-defeating incoherent rule of faith that's fine with me. Just don't go around arguing like you don't then. It's easy to dismiss a candidate for consideration when it shrugs its shoulders and admits it upfront rather than when it tries to salvage consideration by deflection or evasion.
"The operative word is "claims." You haven't begun to demonstrate that claim. "
Bingo. The claim is a necessary, though not sufficient. Rome makes the claim. So do EO and Mormons and Crazy Dave on the street and David Koresh. The next stage would be evaluating the credibility of those claims. Protestantism doesn't make the claim and actively rejects it in the first place, so it removes itself of its own accord.
(end)
"What you've done is to begin with your preconception of what you think Christianity should be like, then shop around for an available religious tradition that suits your preconception. You haven't justified your preconception. Rather, you take that for granted. You begin with your self-imposed necessity, then cast about for something to feed it."
So Christ and the Apostles claims to divine authority were completely superfluous then? If a Jew heard Christ/Apostles, then heard some random Jewish guy offering his own self-admitted provisional and fallible interpretations of the OT and was explicit he had no divine authority, would the Jew have been justified in giving the assent of faith to that random Jewish guy? Of course not - such would be irrational - he would be engaging in sheer fideism.
"By contrast, I begin with revelation."
Have to have a way to coherently identify revelation first according to your starting principles. Commentaries don't do that.
"You mean the liberal bias of contemporary Catholic Bible scholars?"
The point is a bulk of your blog is devoted to exposing liberal and secular biases and presuppositions. So it's silly for you to charge me with postmodernist cliches to deflect.
"So Rome must hold in tension two or more conflicting hermeneutical methods. It's quite a strain."
So Rome doesn't use the same toolkit as Protestants.
" Ah, there's the catch. So now you're claiming that it's only falsifiable by its own standards and criteria. Of course, that's a way of rendering a system unfalsifiable."
So the question is whether that renders Rome unfalsifiable. I've already offered examples of how it can be falsified. If you refuse to evaluate a system by its own criteria, that's an easy way to beg the question. I evaluate Protestantism by its own principles as enshrined in its various confessions and SS rule of faith.
"It's only M. Indeed, just a subset of M. The triad is illusory."
Sola ecclesia again right? If this was true, M would not be beholden to S and T. It could chuck out Romans and say Mary is eternal or that Nicaea never happened or that Orange endorsed Pelagianism. It could just make up whatever it wants. Let's assume M-only is true - according to you, shouldn't it have just altered the canon at Trent to give better support for its doctrines since it so obviously conflicts with various books? Did it issue the decree on the canon just to keep up appearances?
The fact that both T and S require authoritative binding interpretation/judgment by M in no way entails M is overlord or master. Arians appealed to both Scripture and tradition in support of their teachings, neither were valid appeals. The Apostles did not negate S just by virtue of their infallible teaching/interpretation.
This is why Rome is sola STM-triad not sola M.
Steve,
You can sing and you can dance, but you aren't going to be able to dance away from the simple logic of the Gutenberg issue.
As Confucius says about one picture..., those Bibles I keep bringing up that I saw at the museum are owned by one of the wealthiest foundations in the world and the Spanish royal family. Each one is worth a fortune now and each one was worth a fortune in the middle ages when it was first produced.
The average Joe did not own a Bible. It was read TO him at Mass. The Church mediated the Bible to him.
Oh, and I wasn't changing the subject. I was actually responding to your stuff about not having any 1st century manuscripts.
You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject from how SS could work before the invention of the printing press.
Steve,
The Bible is infallible, yes? And the men who wrote it were infallible too, at least when writing scripture, yes?
Yet you are not infallible, are you? Could you explain how your fallible mind can trust in an infallible book?
Unless you believe that something can be greater than its source, the Church that gave us the Bible must be infallible.
I keep saying that my faith is "REASONABLE".
Just like when I take the meds prescribed by a fallible doctor and concocted by a fallible pharmacist.
If you mistrust your mind so much, I hope you don't drive, at least not on a freeway.
Tell me Steve, are you sure you are sitting before your computer at this moment? Maybe this has all been a dream. Maybe you are really a bug dreaming you are a blogger.
Steve,
By the way, how could OT Judaism have worked on the principle of Sola Scriptura?
The Jews today who want to rebuild the temple and re-initiate the sacrifices have some major problems as to how to actually implement what Moses said to do.
For instance, the lamp stand in the Bible was made of gold. Gold is a very weak but very heavy metal. The arms of the lamp stand are to heavy and collapse when made according to what the Bible Alone says. IOW, there is more to it than what we find in Moses. There was an extra-biblical source that explained how to make the temple utensils out of pure gold.
Without the commentaries, the Jews did not even know how to slit the throat of the sacrificial victim. Was the knife to be drawn from left to right or right to left? Was it important?
The NT was written to people who already believed and were practicing their faith. They were people who were listing to their bishops and elders.
The Bible does not say if babies are to be baptized or not. It does not say which books comprise the Bible. And, as Luther brought out, it does not say if women are to receive the Eucharist or not. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. An extra biblical authority is needed to fill in the gaps.
The principle of Bible Alone is a totally unworkable principle. It is unworkable today and it was even more unworkable before the invention of the printing press.
( I through in the printing press stuff so you wouldn't accuse me of changing the subject again ).
OMG! I mean to say "I THREW in the...".
I don't want to go up against you in a spelling bee. Your spelling makes up for your shoddy understanding of Christianity.
"So sound interpretations that carry divine authority are infallible right?"
You have a hang-up about infallibility. An interpretation needn't be infallible to be right. Fallible people are right some of the time.
i) Your demand for an infallible interpretation is unreasonable. It's sufficient that an interpretation be right. What necessary contribution does infallibility make to a correct interpretation?
ii) Moreover, your infallibilist alternative is chimerical. The church of Rome can't make good on that claim.
"STM-triad guards the deposit of faith."
You're ducking the issue of whether a newly-found letter of Paul would add to the deposit of faith, and, if so, whether that's compatible with the traditional definition of the deposit of faith.
"Scripture interprets Scripture and Scripture is the sole infallible authority is your rule of faith. I'm interested in knowing how that works if the recognized scope and extent of the canon is reformable."
The addition of a newly-found letter of Paul wouldn't change the principle.
"But does SS work with just the OT canon?"
That's how it worked during the Intertestamental period.
"Secondly this still doesn't answer how you establish the 'irreformable' baseline standard to compare the new Pauline letter against."
i) You're a slow learner. As I've said before, I don't grant your operating framework. God doesn't require me to posit an "irreformable" baseline. You keep imposing that extraneous category onto the discussion. But that's not a divine mandate.
ii) Who said a newly-found Pauline letter must be compared against a baseline standard? Every Pauline letter is a standard in its own right.
"Divine revelation is true but not irreformable?"
i) You've done nothing to justify your a priori insistence that articles of faith must meet a condition of "irreformability" over and above the condition of being true.
ii) Moreover, "irreformability" is ambiguous. Divine revelation is "irreformable" insofar as truth never needs to be corrected. However, it's reformable insofar as progressive revelation (during the period of public revelation) augments divine revelation and/or articles of faith.
Cont. "As I said, to put your faith into mere plausible opinion (whether it be true or not) is either sheer fideism or stark rationalism."
Once again, you disregard the elementary distinction between true and false belief. You also fail to show why true belief never counts as knowledge.
"Yes and atheists have documented cases, including from liberal Protestants, where Scripture is errant. Further, there are two relevant questions - whether Rome has actually reversed course and whether it has reversed course in such a way that damages or is relevant to infallibility."
Your tactics to take refuge in safe, fact-free abstractions. You have a paper theory which you refuse to compare with the actual output of your denomination.
"that's a fair non question-begging approach."
You exhibit a pattern of defective responses. You raise an objection, I present a counterargument, then you repeat your original objection without engaging the counterargument.
As I already pointed out to you, it's not question-begging to judge a belief-system by external standards so long as the critic justifies his own standards.
Your persistent deficiency in refusing to acknowledge and engage counterarguments betrays a lack of good faith on your part.
"You seem to freely admit it can't offer irreformable doctrines. Great."
I reject your arbitrary and impious conceptual scheme.
"Okay so the 'God's people' stuff you were arguing before is irrelevant?"
Are you attempting to be clever, or are you really that uncomprehending? I didn't appeal to God's people as a criterion or evidence for the canon. Go back and reread the context of my remarks.
"Why did you forget your own advice - Even if your tu quoque were successful, proving that Protestants have a parallel problem does nothing to disprove your own."
i) It's revealing how you consistently evade your own burden of proof. That's a tacit admission that your own position is indefensible, which is why you constantly shift the onus onto the Protestant.
ii) I've defended sola scriptura in detail on numerous occasions.
"You sidestep the entire argument pertinent to the difference between Protestantism and Rome's rule of faith (and associated warrant) to deflect."
You haven't presented a scintilla of evidence that the Catholic rule of faith is true, much less rebutted evidence to the contrary.
All you've done is to pull out of thin air the claim that your alternative *must* be true.
"Wonderful - so articles of faith are just reasonable conclusions. Faith is just rationalism. You weigh and evaluate all these evidences to come to your tentative probable 'true' conclusions you assent to. It can never rise above that because of the very starting principles you agree to."
You're working with some shadowy epistemology which you haven't bothered to spell out. Sounds like crude foundationalism, which its appeal to "first principles."
Suppose reliabilism is a good model of knowledge/justified true belief. If my beliefs are the result of a reliable belief-forming process, then my beliefs count as knowledge.
i) Let's plug that into Calvinism. God can give the elect knowledge by providentially arranging their experience to put them in contact with true theological information, which they are socially conditioned to believe. Say God predestines them to be born and raised in a Christian home where they have access to the Bible–as well as indoctrinated in a theologically sound church.
By prearranging the circumstances of their lives, God fosters faith. And their faith is "warranted" by a divinely-guided process which aims at the formation of true beliefs. These aren't accidentally true beliefs, but divinely intended true beliefs.
That wouldn't be mere "opinion." That would be justified true belief.
You can try to take issue with reliabilism, but whatever your unstated alternative epistemology happens to be, that, too, will be subject to philosophical scrutiny.
ii) One of your problems is the gratuitous assumption that we can only arrive at knowledge by the application of an external criterion. That, in turn, suffers from two fundamental objections:
a) It generates an infinite regress. What's the criterion for your criterion?
b) It fails to distinguish between first-order knowledge and second-order knowledge. It confuses knowledge with proof.
"It's a fallible scholary magisterium."
I already corrected you on your cutesy parallel between the Roman magisterium and a "scholarly magisterium."
"You run around amassing all your commentaries and books touching on all the relevant fields…"
You're simply repeating yourself and failing to absorb my prior response. All of us are at the mercy of providence for what we know and believe. God puts some people in an advantageous situation where they can (and do) arrive at the truth while putting others in a disadvantageous situation where the truth is inaccessible.
That's out of my hands. If God intends me to be mistaken, I can't do any better.
I don't fret over matters beyond my control. That's really not my responsibility.
It's not as if your supposed alternative can bypass the circumstances in which God places each individual.
"Yes the arbitrary threshold that divine revelation is infallible and irreformable."
You're playing a bait-n-switch. The question at issue isn't whether divine revelation is infallible, but whether faith must be infallible. Or do you just not know the difference?
"Protestantism doesn't make the claim and actively rejects it in the first place, so it removes itself of its own accord."
You haven't begun to demonstrate that what you require of Christians is what God requires of Christians. Rather, you impose artificial standards and conditions in defiance of what God actually demands. Protestantism doesn't claim more than God claims.
"So Christ and the Apostles claims to divine authority were completely superfluous then?"
Christ and the Apostles didn't make your claims about "irreformability" or what "warrants the assent of faith." That's your claim, not theirs, which you make in spite of what they say.
What is the warrant for believing Jn 20:31? Not the papacy. Not the Roman Magisterium. That's not what's given in the text.
A reader doesn't need any warrant over and above the document itself. That's how it's stated.
By contrast, you're telling the reader that he doesn't have a right to accept what Jn 20:31 says unless he also submits to the pope. You're telling the reader not to believe what it says. You're telling the reader to disbelieve the claim unless the Magisterium authorizes him to believe it.
Your position is nothing short of impious.
"Have to have a way to coherently identify revelation first according to your starting principles."
i) To begin with, I've done that on many occasions.
ii) However, your methodology is flawed. We don't need "first principles to identity revelation. God can simply put Jews and Christians in a time and place where they *have* divine revelation. God identifies it for them by handing them the finished product. For instance, God providentially gives them a copy of a Protestant Bible.
iii) You're confusing faith with apologetics. We don't need to begin with first principles to know things or have access to the truth. That can be useful for confirming or disconfirming our religious legacy.
"So Rome doesn't use the same toolkit as Protestants."
That's a simpleminded retort. On the one hand there's the quasi-official position of Rome. Take the PBC's "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (1993). That, itself, is a compromise document, subject to revision.
On the other hand, there's the way in which contemporary Catholic Bible scholars actually go about their business. And their religious superiors are aware of this. In practice, they use the same toolkit as Protestants.
"If this was true, M would not be beholden to S and T. It could chuck out Romans and say Mary is eternal or that Nicaea never happened or that Orange endorsed Pelagianism. It could just make up whatever it wants."
Catholicism plays a double game. On the one hand it claims that even the pope can't change dogma. Even the pope is bound by the deposit of faith.
On the other hand, since the pope is the supreme interpreter of Scripture and tradition alike, they have no independent meaning or authority. So, *by definition*, the pope hasn't contradicted dogma or the deposit of faith even if he chucks Romans or says Orange endorses Pelagianism.
For he's not contradicting dogma or the deposit of faith. He's "interpreting" dogma or the deposit of faith. That's the sense in which your system is unfalsifiable.
A Catholic can't over over the head of the pope by appealing directly to Scripture or tradition.
"The average Joe did not own a Bible. It was read TO him at Mass. The Church mediated the Bible to him."
Actually, the Bible was originally read to Jews and Christians in synagogues or house-churches owned by wealthy Christians.
"Could you explain how your fallible mind can trust in an infallible book?"
By regeneration and divine providence.
"those Bibles I keep bringing up that I saw at the museum are owned by one of the wealthiest foundations in the world and the Spanish royal family. Each one is worth a fortune now and each one was worth a fortune in the middle ages when it was first produced."
That's such a dumb comparison. Do you think the letters Paul dictated to a scribe were written on gilt-edged vellum with hand-painted illustrations?
We're talking papyri.
Moreover, how do you think copies of the NT proliferated so quickly and widely that we still have so many extant MSS (just a tiny fraction survive) if it was so exorbitantly expensive to copy the Bible?
But, of course, you don't think.
"The average Joe did not own a Bible. It was read TO him at Mass. The Church mediated the Bible to him."
According to 2 Tim 3:15, Timothy began learning the Bible at the knee of his Jewish mother and grandmother. Either they told him Bible stories, read the Bible to him, or both.
"You run around amassing all your commentaries and books touching on all the relevant fields and try to assimilate as much as you can and weigh all the conflicting tentative conclusions and arguments of these scholars with their varying presuppositions and analytical methodologies. Of course you will never become competent or an expert in all these fields. And even if you magically could, such would still just be your expert opinion (which is nothing more than the most erudite specialists can offer). So your conclusions remain ever-provisional."
"they are simply reasoned opinions based on the best available evidence we have according to whatever erudite scholars we sub-select for"
Let's see. Catholic apologists run around amassing evidence for Rome from sundry sources. Catholic apologists will never become competent or expert in OT studies, NT studies, patristics, church history, canon law, liturgics, dogmatic theology, &c.
Thus their case for Roman Catholicism can never rise higher than the conflicting tentative conclusions of the scholars they sub-select for. Their faith in the Roman church is never more than ever-provisional opinion.
"Bingo. The claim is a necessary, though not sufficient. Rome makes the claim. So do EO and Mormons and Crazy Dave on the street and David Koresh. The next stage would be evaluating the credibility of those claims. Protestantism doesn't make the claim and actively rejects it in the first place, so it removes itself of its own accord."
Free free to count yourself out. God isn't graveling for your consideration.
"The principle of Bible Alone is a totally unworkable principle."
The Magisterium is a totally unworkable principle:
We are in fact constantly confronted with problems where it isn’t possible to find the right answer in a short time. Above all in the case of problems having to do with ethics, particularly medical ethics...We finally had to say, after very long studies, "Answer that for now on the local level; we aren’t far enough along to have full certainty about that.
"Again, in the area of medical ethics, new possibilities, and with them new borderline situations, are constantly arising where it is not immediately evident how to apply principles. We can’t simply conjure up certitude...There needn’t always be universal answers. We also have to realize our limits and forgo answers where they aren’t possible...it simply is not the case that we want to go around giving answers in every situation..." (J. Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth [Ignatius, 1996], 100-101).
"An extra biblical authority is needed to fill in the gaps."
Something is definitely needed to fill the gap between Guy's ears.
"The Jews today who want to rebuild the temple and re-initiate the sacrifices have some major problems as to how to actually implement what Moses said to do."
Moses didn't command them to rebuild the temple.
"The Bible does not say if babies are to be baptized or not."
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that God doesn't indicate whether or not to baptize babies, that would mean it's not that important to God. That would mean baptizing babies is permissible, but not obligatory. Adiaphora.
"the Jews did not even know how to slit the throat of the sacrificial victim. Was the knife to be drawn from left to right or right to left? Was it important?"
Why is that important?
Guy's position plays right into Jonathan Swift's parody:
"…the Emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a Schism in Religion, by offending against a fundamental Doctrine of our great Prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth Chapter of the Brundecal, (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere Strain upon the Text: For the Words are these; That all true believes shall break their Eggs at the convenient End; and which is the convenient End, seems, in my humble Opinion, to be left to every Man’s Conscience, or at least in the Power of the chief Magistrate to determine."
1.
Cletus Van Damme said, Once again, you have to deal with holding consistent principles that allow you to reliably identify Scripture and its attendant doctrines
I have — that both men and writings of God were recognized and established as being of God and authoritative without an infallible magisterium. Affirm or deny as that is what RCs must deal with to proved the IM is essential for that instead.
Scripture identifies the extent and scope of the canon and that it is "wholly inspired"?
It provides for what i just described, and thus in principle for a canon being established. Affirm or deny.
Can you tell me why it took centuries for recognition of the full canon to take place and why faithful men held differing opinions on disputed books?
It took Rome centuries you mean. The Prot canon was overall settled rather quickly, though it benefited by previous rumination. It can take a while because as with men of God, it is more evident with some that they were of God than without others. The OT texts the church appealed were established as being authoritative without an IM (if not immediately or completely universally, as with the rest). so why not others?
Why did those who you appeal to for recognizing the NT canon blow it with the OT canon?
That is begging the question. Many RCs did not consider the Deutros part of Scripture proper, and the Prot canon has antiquity. There was no infallible, indisputable canon until after Luther died, and he was not a maverick in questioning and rejecting some books.
I see - so tradition that was later inscripturated was first subject to being proved by Scripture. So the later inscripturated Scripture is completely superfluous; we should all be OT SSists.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Testing Truth claims for conflation as the Bereans did does not marginalize the new and expanded revelation or greater illumination such provided.
The Bereans were not examining writings as merely historically accurate documents in order to find warrant to submit to the office of the apostles as perpetually infallible as per Rome's criteria, and thereby know these writings were of God, but they searched the Scriptures to ascertain the veracity of apostolic preaching by writings which men had already discerned as being Divine, without an IM.
And which discernment would not cease to be operative when hearing more preaching, and seeing if it was conflative with what preceded it. "Prove all things" and "Test the spirits whether they be of God” required something to test them by.
Certainly the apostles had established strong personal credibility, and which upon constant testimony, not as if their office was to be presumed to possess perpetual assured veracity whenever operating in a certain scope and subject-based mode.
Tradition reproves erroneous interpretations of Scripture, as apostolic tradition did with Jewish interpretation.
But the latter was established upon Scripture, like as the oral rebuke of Jewish interpretative tradition was upon Scripture. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29-30)
As said, apostolic tradition, that of oral preaching of the revelatory gospel to the stewards of Scripture, was upon Scripture, like as the Lord used toward the disciples and thus opened their mind to it, not to some forgotten amorphous tradition.
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27) to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23)
2.
Yes and RCism appeals to Scripture explicitly and implicitly. So Apostles and Christ citing Scripture does nothing to establish SS - if it did, the NT canon is superfluous.
Nonsense. RC appeal is perfunctory, as it is already determined that Scripture cannot correct her, and her veracity does not rest upon the weight of it (nor is any actually essential), but upon the premise of her assured veracity. Which she first works to convince souls of, as only by her can one be sure what is inspired, etc. of God.
How else can you hold such a thing as praying to departed saints in Heaven as being of God?
However, the apostles labored to convince souls of their message of the gospel and its Christ, under the premise that their hearers could and would judge rightly. Thus the veracity of their preaching depended upon Scriptural substantiation, versus working to convince them to render implicit trust in them.
Yes, so the NT is superfluous. If OT was supreme during NT times, the NT truth claims could never be inscripturated.
Again, this Roman reasoning is invalid, as the latter was enscripturated upon the authority of the former, as complimentary and conflative, not in contradictory competition nor as a mere copy of it.
So OT Scripture is supreme in establishing more Scripture? How can a supreme standard be a standard when it is in the process of being changed?
Because Scripture did not begin with Rome, and Scripture was Scripture was any given stage, the NT joining it and thus having its authority.
> "I am not arguing for formal sufficiency of the OT, nor know any SS advocates that do." <
Then you need to alter your argument and stop trying to have it both ways.
No, as i never argued for formal sufficiency of the OT, nor for that matter for full formal sufficiency in the entire Bible for all things.
>"But it also is not parallel, except due to the magisterium effectively being supreme, since Scripture only consists of and assuredly means what she says it does, and then making Scripture equal to what it deems the word of God in amorphous tradition."<
Which is exactly what a Jew could say to Christ/Apostles to justify his rejection of their authority. Your whole line of argumentation is like that.
Wrong. Even the Lord did not presume to define the OT canon in contradiction to what the Scribes and Pharisees held, nor was His of the disciples basis for authority that of perpetual infallibility of the historical magisterium. Instead they convinced the Jews on the basis of Scriptural testimony. The Lord could prophesy and provide new revelation, and could correct interpretations under the evidential premise that He was God, established under the premise of Scripture being supreme to which He appealed. The Jews never won an argument with Him as He did so.
Manifest apostles of God could preach the word of God, and inspired writers of Scripture could reveal mysteries, yet of all which was subject to testing by writings that had previously been established as being of God, to which they appealed. The teaching of the NT abounds with valid cross references to the OT. in a good study Bible.
Thus rather than a Jew being able to say to Christ/Apostles that they autocratically claimed Scripture only consisted of and assuredly meant whatever they said due to them sitting in the seat of Moses via historical descent, and thereby making amorphous tradition equal to Scripture, instead that was what basically applied to the Scribes and Pharisees, and by extension, to Rome. Thus both were and are reproved by Scripture, to which the Lord and His disciples often appealed to for verification, not a charism of infallibility flowing via historical descent.
3.
>"A false dilemma. No, he did not tell them to do as a RC would, that of consulting the magisterium and follow them. "<
No, he told them to follow his authority. Which is what RCism does. Rome is making the claim at least to divine authority and infallibility. Protestantism actively rejects it.
Wrong. Again, the Lord and His disciples did not appeal to historical descent of office from Moses as the basis for their veracity, "...by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)
They were more as dissident prophets, upon which the church was built, and looking to the written word as the supreme standard by which Truth claims were tested, and established. True Protestantism claims Divine authority for its teachings based upon conformity with the Divine authority of Scripture, and not under the premise that it can only mean what they say due to a charism of infallibility flowing via formal descent, which is a novel invention in Scripture.
You keep flip-flopping to try to have it both ways.
No, it is you who insist i must be arguing for SS as in a completed canon, while my argument was that as written, the written word became the supreme standard, while its sufficiency was not that of a complete canon, nor it that the claim, but that it materially provides for further writings of God being given and established as being so. Without an office of infallibility . Which itself is contrary to the presumption of Rome.
If you don't agree with White
If you want to make this btwn White and me, then ask him if he disagrees with what i said.
Again by this logic, Christ/Apostles were negating the authority of OT Scripture in offering their infallible teaching/interpretation and later inscripturation which you claim they weren't.
Wrong. That would not negate the authority of OT Scripture, which i did not say Rome was doing, but that she makes it secondary by effectively placing herself above it, which is indeed the case. For as said, the basis of her veracity is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, to which the apostles appealed, but which is reduced to being a merely historically accurate document apart from Rome, who has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, based upon the premise of historical descent as meaning she is infallible.
Um, no. Non-infallible authority isn't defining divine revelation. Governors and police officers aren't prophets. So I've excluded nothing. And you evade the point.
No. You rejected non-infallible authority as warranting submission, which could leave you dead under the OT. And as seen in Scripture, perpetual assured infallibility of the magisterial seat of Moses is not what God used to establish what Divine revelation is or means. But He did use prophets, and apostles who appealed to the authority of Scripture as supreme.
Meanwhile, Rome fails of both the qualifications and credentials of the apostles she claims to succeed.
>"I knew the evang churches in my experience were/are not libertarian. "<
Irrelevant to the point that liberal protestants and conservative protestants are equally justified and consistent with Protestantism's starting principles.
Wrong. How can a lib. Prot. church which does not actually hold Scripture as the supreme wholly inspired and accurate word of God be consistent with Protestantism's starting principles? You need a perpetual assuredly wholly infallible magisterium as your supreme authority. We need the wholly inspired and accurate word of God.
You can however appeal to their rejection of an infallible authority as determinative of Truth, and thus include libertarian Prots, but by the same token the Mormons and other such cults are consistent with Rome.
4.
The early church was operating for decades before Scripture was complete.
Please. Do not resort to the typical RC idea that the authority of Scripture (if not the universe) began with her.
Again, appeal to Scripture does not establish SS.
Again, what it establishes is the supremacy of Scripture while its sufficiency is not that of a complete canon, nor was that my claim, but that it materially provides for further writings of God being given and established as being so. Without an office of infallibility.
It does not require great reflection to see that Manning in these passages is not abandoning either Scripture or Tradition in such a way as to assist Salmon's argument.
That is not needed, nor was it my intent to infer he was abandoning either Scripture or Tradition, but that they only mean what Rome says they do based upon here presumption of a perpetual charism of infallibility of office.
Manning contends is that for an individual or a local Church to appeal from the verdict of the Church to the allegedly contradictory evidence of the Bible or history is not permissible. Clearly it is not, if the Church's infallibility is conceded.
Exactly. Under the false premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
It is exactly comparable to a Jew's rejection of the teaching of Christ on the alleged ground that this teaching contradicts the Old Testament revelation.
And which is a valid basis for dispute, contra Manning, if the Judaism could win the argument. But which they could not. For rather than holding that what they taught was correct based upon the premise of assured veracity of office thru historical descent as per Rome, the Lord and His disciples met the Scripturally literate on their own grounds,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:42-46)
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
So maybe you can revise your polemical rolodex for the future.
There is simply nothing to revise. You only confirmed the autocratic presumption of Rome.
>""Accepting additional writings as being of God does not make the standard reformable as in changing its authority and that of her doctrine. ""<
Adding books to the canon is not reforming the standard? Taking verses out is not reforming the standard? What would be reforming the standard then?
The NT does not negate the authority of the OT, but affirms it by fulfilling it, while invoking it for support. You asked "How can you have a sole infallible standard when that standard itself is reformable?" The NT does not negate Scripture as being the sole infallible standard because it added writings. Whatever joined that class became part of that standard.
And additions were historically established with an IM, the necessity for which for providing, discerning, and preserving Truth is what you must establish. It is the fruit of Rome today that is far less uniform than classic evangelical types, while she has demonstrate how she can redefine o change her past teaching which RCs were to obey.
5.
You mean your provisional opinion of what the gospel is. The point is the confessions are revisable en toto because they shoot themselves in the foot with their own claims.
You mean that because one does not profess infallibility but rests it veracity upon Scriptural warrant then it cannot be trusted to preserve faith, as in theory it can radically change its understanding, but an entity which infallibly defines itself as infallible, and can reform its past understanding, can.
But which leaves Scriptural Divine power and means out of the first, while presuming it in the second. For God provided and preserved Truth and faith without non infallible magisterial authority, but which had authority nonetheless, to which conditional submission was enjoined.
And while the church began with common people recognizing what was of God,
with itinerant preachers establishing their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power,
with God raising up manifest men of God who corrected errors of the magisterium,
which presumed of themselves a veracity of office above that which was written,
yet somehow a novel perpetual charism of infallibility of the historical magisterial office is required to preserve faith, contrary to Scripture,
which has never provided it or shown it to be God's means.
And which office can reform past infallible teaching such as required submission to the pope for salvation, to mean baptized Prots who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief, are born again children of God.
Which interpretation, and its authority, is subject to fallible variant interpretation by her popes and subjects in word or deed.
the authority of those writings is itself just a matter of opinion according to *that principle*.
I understand it must be hard to imagine God no needing the IM of Rome, but like it or not, God established both writings and men of God as being so without a perpetual IM. Will you be of them who "do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
The authority of those writings is not just a matter of opinion according to Rome's *own principles* - because it claims infallible authority.
Rome's own authority as having perpetual infallibility of office is a matter of her infallible opinion, being neither taught or shown to be essential for God to keep His promises.
>"But RCs do."<
Of course they don't. They appeal to STM-triad.
Seriously, they do as i described despite the propaganda. Constantly.
They appeal to fallible human reasoning in seeking to establish Scripture and the IM., then reject human reasoning as able to correctly discern what is Scripture and its meaning if they reject it as supporting Rome, under the premise that they need the IM to do so.
In any case, you cannot establish that perpetual assured infallibility of magisterial office is promised or was or is necessary for God to perform His promises.
SS proponents climb up the ladder (such as Kruger's appeal to corporate consensus and apostolic authorship) then kick the ladder when they've reached the security of the canon.
I know not of Kruger, but the means by which one finds the security of Scripture does not make it as equal to Scripture. But it is only presumed that by God's grace one can discern what is of God, without an IM, which even may be reproved by manifest men of God. And which is how faith was often preserved and is how the church began.
6.
Have to identify Scripture consistently first. According to your starting principles, the scope/extent and inspiration/inerrancy of the canon is just a tentative opinion. It can only ever be that because Protestantism rejects divine authority.
Thus again, the church began with itinerant preachers validating Truth claims from writings whose authority were and could only be held as being tentative opinions.
Thus the NT church was built upon a specious foundation which is not to be followed, and instead man awaited one that could tell us what was of God based upon her possessing perpetual infallibility, for which premise she appealled to some merely historically accurate docs. And since she declared herself infallible, thus her subjects have assurance that she is.
Secondly, you then appeal to Christ/Apostles appealing to Scripture. Again, that does not negate the fact that they claimed divine authority as well. Your argument continues to make those claims superfluous.
Just what charism kicks in when faced with this that prevents you from seeing that the they appealed to Scriptural substantiation for their very claim to divine authority? Do you think they would have gotten far preaching Buddha? Your argument continues to make those claims superfluous.
Yes so the canon remains a fallible collection.
If the est. canon that the Lord referred to in Lk. 24:44 was all of wholly inspired books then it was an infallible canon. But not necessarily as final, or established under the premise of magisterial infallibility. To which I think Sproul would agree. Or should.
So is the pastor offering his teaching as irreformable based on divine authority?
As a "fundamentalist" type, there certainly are things you would die for, versus preferences, to which assent is required, with the divine authority of the teaching being on the basis of "thus saith the Lord" in
Scripture, not some fable the church remembered from 1800 years ago.
To be consistent with Protestant principles he can't - just his ever-provisional opinion. That's why I have no reason to take him seriously.
Again, you keep trying this but to be consistent you would have no reason to take non-infallible OT authority seriously, since it was possible it could be wrong. And there will be spiritual consequences if disobeying the correct judgment of the ecclesiastical magisterium.
What your argument seems to be be is that a SS pastor could interpret Jn. 1:1 as referring to Jesus being one of many created gods, and not be censured by his magisterium or justifiably rejected by the flock under the premise that the "if consonant with the Word" provision means anyone goes.
But which in practice occurs more under sola ecclesia or with those who have a lower view of Scripture, and is contrary to the premise that "what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture," which presupposes some fundamentals, and which indeed the modern evangelical movement arose to defend.
And due to the effectively reformable nature of Rome, she has her own sectarian movements seeking to correct her modern interpretation of their supreme authority.
Whatever you extrapolate from the letter of "if consonant with the Word" provision does not, in spirit, translate into doctrinal anarchy. As said, in practical effect which is what matters, it is those who hold most strongly to the most fundamental Prot. distinctive, that of holding Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God and accurate in all it teaches that are most unified in core values and beliefs versus the overall fruit of Rome, whose restricted unity is largely on paper, while the liberal Prot churches are usually closest to Rome!
7.
But what the basis is for certitude of fundamentals is the issue, that of the weight of Scriptural substantiation, or the premise of assured magisterial veracity. It was upon the former that the church began under, not the latter.
Rome defines boundaries. It's not a borg collective. There is room for development and discussion, but that does not entail there is no irreformable doctrine.
I concur. Even in now in the spiritual declension of the West, I could go to evangelical church after church and find a common assent and contention for fundamentals we concur with Rome on, due to their Scriptural substantiation, and conversely, that is why we commonly contend against her traditions.
The STM-triad is mutually interdependent and attesting. So once again we see how Rome is consistent with her claims. Protestantism is not. And inconsistency/incoherency is an indicator of falsity.
It is actually dependent upon its conclusion that an IM is essential to discern what is of God, which is the recourse when appeal to evidence fails to convince, as expressed here.
As for Protestantism being consistent with her claims, that is your understanding, but appealing to souls to discern warrant for Scripture being the supreme standard does not make man that standard, but requires veracity to be dependent upon the weight of evidence from that standard, versus the perpetual assured veracity of the magisterial office, being that standard.
Your citations of Keating and Graham again illustrate the difference. In Protestantism, nothing changes before and after submission. An NT believer submitting to Christ/Apostles' authority would not be warranted in then perpetually holding their current and future teachings/interpretations in dock to his arbitrary threshold and level of acceptance according to his provisional opinion to freely reject as his opinion changed. If he did, he would not have actually submitted to their authority - nothing would have changed pre and post submission.
Rather, since his assent to core truths was based upon the weight of evidence, thus he can contend for it as having a solid basis, and historically evangelicals have for non-negotiable truths RCs must also assent to, and censuring those who deny them, while as with Rome, allowing varying degrees of disagreement on other issues,
It is asked whether saints can sin in Heaven, and answer is that even if they could, they will not since a true saint has yearned his whole redeemed life to be free from its power.
But for a RC, his basis for assurance rests upon the novel premise of perpetual assured magisterial veracity, which i must dissent from due to the weight of evidence not establishing it, especially considering what a cardinal doctrine it is. While the Roman model is indeed more conducive to unity, it is also cultic, not NT Scriptural. Nor does it escape the need for interpretation, as RCs can differ on which teachings are infallible, and their meanings to varying degrees. It also fosters the unScriptural idea that Truth is what one simply professes, while what Rome does and fosters reveals and conveys what she really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18)
> "However, as said, most of the Bible was already held as being authoritative as Scripture before the church began" <
So we just need the OT right?
What kind of Roman reasoning is it that first concludes that establishing additional writings as being of God by that which had prior been established means that “the standard itself that you say they were subjecting their teaching to had not yet been set”? And then when i point out that “most of the Bible was already held as being authoritative as Scripture before the church began” somehow you conclude this translates into full formal sufficiency so that we just need the OT?!
8.
So oral torah/preaching was tested by the established word of God, then became inscripturated to become the established word of God?
Indeed, the established word of God was that of limited revelation to a few men to whom God revealed Himself, and which faith God variously supernaturally attested to. As He did to Moses the man of God, thereby further affirming that the God of Abraham and his faith was True. To and through Moses God provided the comprehensive biding revelation of the Law, which was needed due to transgressions, thus blessing the souls by turning them from sins, while also rendering them more accountable than pagans and Hebrews before the Law.
The Law became the supreme standard for obedience and testing/establishing both further men and writings of God. Ps. 19 and 119 was not written of scope of oral preaching, but the Law. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7) Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:11) MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (Psalms 119:97) And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:11) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Right - so any appeals outside of self-attestation and inner witness creates a canon above the canon.
Wrong, not any more than RC appeal to reason as the means to ascertain warrant for submission to Rome, and presuming her souls can understand her weighty legislation to
obey it.
If it was material then the NT canon isn't needed. Material means the material has to be there in the first place. The White quote precludes you from appealing to Scripture to prove SS as no writer could've meant it according to ghm exegesis.
Wrong. Material includes such things as God providing more men and transmission, and men discerning it as being of God, which is did in the OT, and again i am not contending souls were operating under SS as in the case of a complete canon, but that further revelation was subject to testing by that which was established before it, and which provided for it.
Again, if you think White disagrees with what i said, go ask him. You are not debating White despite your fixation with him, nor do i need to defend what you think he would conclude. Admit that both men and writings were recognized and established and authoritative as being of God without a perpetual infallible magisterium, or show that it was essential for this. If you cannot, then stop validating ecclesiastical anarchy in the absence of an IM.
> "That they held Scripture as supremely authoritative is clear" <
Bye bye NT canon (again).
Again, what kind of Roman reasoning causes such absurd conclusion? Do you really think Scripture began with Rome, so that holding the written word as supreme, in the light of which further complimentary writings would be established, and share its authority as Scripture, nukes the NT canon?!
> "Not so, as unlike Rome, the veracity of their Truth claims did not rest upon the premise of assured veracity" <
It's exactly so. ...The veracity of their truth claims rested upon their divine authority. They appealed to Scripture of course - they would not have divine authority to contradict Scripture, just as Rome's divine authority does not contradict Scripture.
Wrong again: as expressed before, that their divine authority and teachings did not contradict Scripture was not based upon the premise that an IM was necessary and that their office possessed perpetual formulaic infallibility, but that it was manifestly established upon the weight of Scriptural testimony.
Let's compare Guy's ignorant, armchair comparisons and denials, with informed scholarship:
The letters of Paul to his communities, the earliest extant Christian texts, were dictated to scribal associates (presumably Christian), carried to their destinations by a traveling Christian, and read aloud to the congregations. But Paul also envisioned the circulation of some of his letters beyond a single Christian group (cf. Gal 1:2, "to the churches of Galatia," Rom 1:7 "to all God's beloved in Rome"–dispersed among numerous discrete house churches, Rom 16:5,10,11,14,15), and the author of Colossians, if not Paul, gives instruction for the exchange of Paul's letters between different communities (Col 4:16)…
To take another case, the Apocalypse, addressed to seven churches in western Asia Minor, was almost surely sent in separate copy to each. Even so, the author anticipated its wider copying and dissemination beyond those original recipients, and so warned subsequent copyists to preserve the integrity of the book, neither adding nor subtracting, for fear of religious penalty (Rev 22:18-19). The private Christian copying and circulation that is presumed in these early writings continued to be the means for the publication and dissemination of Christian literature in the second and third centuries.
It can also been seen when Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, had the letters of Ignatius copied and sent to the Christian community in Philippi, and had copies of letters from them and other churches in Asia Minor sent to Syrian Antioch (Phil 13). it is evident too in the scribal colophons of the Martyrdom of Polycarp (22:2-4)…
From another angle, the physical remains of early Christian books show that they were produced and disseminated privately within and between Christian communities. Early Christian texts, especially those of a scriptural sort, were almost always written in codices or leaf books–an informal, economical, and handy format–rather than on rolls, which were the traditional and standard vehicle for all other books. Also distinctive to Christian books was the pervasive use of nomina sacra, divine names written in abbreviated forms, which was clearly an in-house practice of Christian scribes. Further, the preponderance in early Christian papyrus manuscripts of an informal quasi-documentary script rather than a professional bookhand also suggests that Christian writings were privately transcribed with a view to intramural circulation and use.
It deserves notice that some early Christian texts appear to have enjoyed surprisingly rapid and wide circulation. Already by the early decades of the second century Papias of Hierapolis in western Asia Minor was acquainted at least with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.15-16); Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna were all acquainted with collections of Paul's letters; and papyrus copies of various early Christian texts were current in Egypt.
The brisk and broad dissemination of Christian books presumes not only a lively interest in texts among Christian communities but also efficient means for their reproduction and distribution…Books were nevertheless important to them virtually from the beginning, for even before Christians began to compose their own texts, books of Jewish scripture played an indispensable role in their worship, teaching, and missionary preaching.
…larger Christian centers must have had some scriptorial capacity…Absent such reliable intra-Christian means for the production of books, the range of texts known and used by Christian communities across the Mediterranean basin by the end of the second century would be without explanation.
Just as the missionary proliferation of text-oriented Christian communities during the second and third centuries provided ample incentive to the production and copying of Christian books, the close relationships and frequent contacts that were cultivated between those communities provided efficient means for their dissemination. This circumstance hastened and broadened the circulation of early Christian literature, giving it a vitality and reach that seem extraordinary for books moving through private networks. Harry Gamble, "The Book Trade in the Roman Empire," Charles Hill & Michael Kruger, eds. The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012), 32-35.
The Bible was available via the pubic reading of Scripture.
That does seem obvious:
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: (Mark 12:10)
John Chrysostom (347–407) exhorted the laity to "get you at least the New Testament,," and in Matthew he refers to hearing of the Scriptures, he also chastens the laity for presuming "the reading of the divine Scriptures" appertains to such as monks, while they needed it more, and marginalizing them was" far worse than not reading."
The context of the exhortation in Ephesians is the home life, and he says not "hear" but "study the Scriptures."
And in Col. 3:16 he is exhorting them to "get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers..." for "the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness."
Homily 2 on Matthew: For, tell me, who of you that stand here, if he were required, could repeat one Psalm, or any other portion of the divine Scriptures? ...10. But what is the answer to these charges? "I am not," you will say, "one of the monks, but I have both a wife and children, and the care of a household." Why, this is what has ruined all, your supposing that the reading of the divine Scriptures appertains to those only, when you need it much more than they.
Col. 3:16: Let it dwell in you,” he saith, “richly,” not simply dwell, but with great abundance. Hearken ye, as many as are worldly, and have the charge of wife and children; how to you too he commits especially the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness...
Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy.
Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and 301procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers...
This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? - Homily IX. Colossians iii. 16, 17
Homily XX on Ephesians:
If thus we regulate ourselves, and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them. And thus shall be able to please God, and to pass through the whole of the present life virtuously, and to attain those blessings which are promised to those that love Him, of which God grant that we may all be counted worthy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be unto the Father, glory, power, and honor, now, and ever, through all ages. Amen.
On reliance On BIBLE READING BY THE LAITY , RESTRICTIONS ON (Schaff)
"Now if we are willing to examine the Scriptures in this way, carefully and systematically, we shall be able to obtain our salvation. If we unceasingly are preoccupied with them, we shall learn both correctness of doctrine and an upright way of life. (Hom 53 On John)
More: http://www.saintjonah.org/chrysostom_scripture.htm
"Let's grant that Rome allows for an open canon if a lost letter of Paul was discovered. Is that catastrophic to the STM-triad of authority? No. Just as asterisked passages are not. That's one of the advantages of having a triad of parallel authorities (which is why God ordained such)."
This is unintentionally comical because it's oblivious to direct parallels in his own alternative. There are lower-critical questions regarding the textual transmission of church fathers, church councils, papal encyclicals, the Vulgate, &c.
More seriously, there are forgeries and pseudepigrapha, like the False Decretals, "Ambrosiaster," and Pseudo-Dionysius. Many writings traditionally attributed to church fathers were written by someone else.
Moreover, this isn't an academic question. It impacted the development of Catholic theology.
So the Catholic rule of faith is subject to the very same issues in that regard as the text or canon of Scripture.
A basic problem with claiming that sola scripture couldn't be the rule of faith because the complete canon of Scripture didn't exist in the 1C, or because every Christian didn't own a private copy of the Bible, is that a parallel objection applies to the Catholic alternative.
The papacy, in its present form, didn't exist in the 1C, or early centuries of church history. Indeed, the papacy has undergone continuous internal development.
Consider medieval conciliarism. Consider ultramontanism.
The relationship between the papacy and the episcopate was still a matter of heated debate during Vatican II. And "collegiality" continues to be debated in post-Vatican II theology.
If you're going to say sola scripture can't be true because the canon didn't exist or wasn't accessible in the first century or first few centuries of the church, the very same logic applies, perforce, to the Catholic rule of faith.
One stock objection to sola scriptura is that until copies of Scripture were readily available to the laity, it's not a workable principle. Let's take a comparison. This will be a limiting case, where I'm arguing from the greater to the lesser.
We don't have the original letters of Paul. By that I mean, we don't have the autographa. What we have are copies. Copies of copies.
The traditional aim of textual criticism is to retroengineer the urtext from our extant copies. By comparing and contrasting Greek MSS, by taking into account the types of mistakes which scribes make when they copy a text, we product a critical edition that approximates the original.
Even though the original no longer exists, the original is still the standard. That's the ideal in reference to which textual criticism proceeds. Because there was an original, that's the standard of comparison. That's the frame of reference in relation to which we retrace the process of transcription to arrive at the original wording. Even though the autographa are nonexistent, they remain the standard which is guiding the textual critic. That's the target.
Now, that's an extreme example. In the case of sola scripture, Scripture exists. Copies of Scripture were always obtainable for some Jews and Christians. Moreover, Scripture was generally accessible via the public reading of Scripture. You didn't have to read it for yourself to hear it read aloud.
Now, if a nonexistent standard (i.e. the autographa) can still be a functional standard, then in the lesser case of an extant standard (Scripture), sola scriptura can be a functional standard even in situations where availability is limited.
"No, but every one of the examples you offered was of the Bible being read to the people by someone delegated to do so by a legitimate authority."
Justin Martyr doesn't say that. Because you lack evidence to back up your claims, you simply invent evidence out of whole cloth.
Steve said,
Now, if a nonexistent standard (i.e. the autographa) can still be a functional standard, then in the lesser case of an extant standard (Scripture), sola scriptura can be a functional standard even in situations where availability is limited.
And due to the very transcendent, testable and wholly inspired nature of the written wholly inspired word of God, then what it says can (and should) be the supreme standard for testing and establishing further Truth claims.
The papacy, in its present form, didn't exist in the 1C, or early centuries of church history. Indeed, the papacy has undergone continuous internal development.
Contrary to the propaganda. In addition are the changeable interpretations conveyed via papal "I will shew thee my faith by my works" (Ja. 2:18) communication, depending upon who is pope.
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! ...‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there." -Pope Francis — http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/father-the-atheists-even-the-atheists
ISTANBUL (AP) — Pope Francis stood Saturday for two minutes of silent prayer facing east in one of Turkey's most important mosques...His head bowed, eyes closed and hands clasped in front of him, Francis prayed alongside the Grand Mufti of Istanbul, Rahmi Yaran, in the 17th-century Sultan Ahmet mosque.. -
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-visits-iconic-religious-sites-istanbul-073647316.html
And now Francis seems to equate Muslim extremists with Christian fundamentalists:
The Argentine pope..said it was wrong for anyone to react to terrorism by being "enraged" against Islam.
"You just can’t say that, just as you can’t say that all Christians are fundamentalists. We have our share of them (fundamentalists). All religions have these little groups," he said. -http://news.yahoo.com/pope-visits-iconic-religious-sites-istanbul-073647316.html
Under the Catholic model for determining Truth, RCs debate how many binding teachings there are, as well as their meaning. Conservatives interpret past historical teachings as being contrary to how their church interprets them in modern V2 teaching, while liberals interpret the latter as supporting them.
They both look to lower levels of the magisterium to interpret them, which interpretation is manifest and conveyed in word and in deed.
And therefore each side interprets the non-infallible words and actions of the pope as being consistent or inconsistent with church teaching.
Thus the need and problems of interpretation cannot be escaped, and which requires the strongest case being made for a Truth claim in order to obtain victory over competing claims.
Which victory the NT church gained, with what was written being the supreme transcendent standard which further teaching was examined by.
PBJ,
I am having trouble deciphering whom you are addressing but I assume it is me, yes?
The Papacy did not exist in its present form in the early Church you say.
Well, the Popes didn't always have popemobiles and websites, that is true. The white dress was assumed by Pius V who was a Dominican. The red shoes were started during the Reformation and laid aside by the current Pope.
The Popes always knew who they were.
PBJ,
Where are you getting your facts? RCs do not debate what the Popes have taught.
Conservatives and liberals debate whether or not to obey what has been taught.
You are confusing us with you guys and your myriad squabbling denominations.
And yes, all men have been redeemed on Calvary; Catholics, Muslims, atheists and even you.
Whether or not you will be finally saved is another question altogether.
PBJ,
"It provides for what i just described, and thus in principle for a canon being established. Affirm or deny."
Easily denied. Tradition and ecclesiastical authority are needed which is why Rome holds to STM-triad. This is why your side has a problem climbing up the ladder and then kicking it when it comes to the canon.
"It took Rome centuries you mean. The Prot canon was overall settled rather quickly"
So there was some Prot canon developed in parallel to the canon discussions in the early centuries that was settled "rather quickly"? This is an ahistorical assertion on your part.
"It can take a while because as with men of God, it is more evident with some that they were of God than without others."
I see - so God clearly intended His people to recognize the canon in order to follow SS but made them confused as well. Just as he apparently intended Jews to follow SS even though various sects held differing canons.
"That is begging the question."
No begging the question. Many who recognized your NT canon also held to a different OT canon. So seems odd God was granting only partial illumination.
"Testing Truth claims for conflation as the Bereans did does not marginalize the new and expanded revelation or greater illumination such provided."
Right - so Scripture was not the "sole supreme standard" if that standard itself was being added to.
"The Bereans were not examining writings as merely historically accurate documents"
RCs do not treat Scripture as just merely historical accurate documents. That's why its appealed to in defining doctrine, just as Christ/Apostles appealed to it.
"Certainly the apostles had established strong personal credibility"
Bingo - they made the claim to divine authority in the first place. Protestantism does not.
"But the latter was established upon Scripture"
More cart before the horse. Apostolic tradition was wholly inscripturated according to your position; the NT is not superfluous.
"Nonsense. RC appeal is perfunctory, as it is already determined that Scripture cannot correct her, and her veracity does not rest upon the weight of it (nor is any actually essential), but upon the premise of her assured veracity."
Once again arguing exactly like a Jew to justify rejecting Christ/Apostles.
"Thus the veracity of their preaching depended upon Scriptural substantiation, versus working to convince them to render implicit trust in them."
Have you seen what Jews think of the way Apostles interpret the OT?
"as the latter was enscripturated upon the authority of the former, as complimentary and conflative, not in contradictory competition nor as a mere copy of it."
Yes the NT was complementary and not in contradiction. That is completely different than saying the OT is the "sole supreme standard".
"So OT Scripture is supreme in establishing more Scripture? How can a supreme standard be a standard when it is in the process of being changed?
Because Scripture did not begin with Rome, and Scripture was Scripture was any given stage, the NT joining it and thus having its authority."
A non-answer.
"Instead they convinced the Jews on the basis of Scriptural testimony."
Really - so their claims to divine authority and miracles were completely superfluous. They were just akin to knowledgeable rabbis debating other rabbis.
the Lord and His disciples did not appeal to historical descent of office from Moses"
Did they appeal to their divine authority? Once again your argument makes their claims completely superfluous.
"That would not negate the authority of OT Scripture, which i did not say Rome was doing"
Excellent. You see the parallel then.
"but that she makes it secondary by effectively placing herself above it, which is indeed the case."
Now you flounder. I guess Christ/apostles made the OT secondary.
(cont)
"But He did use prophets, and apostles who appealed to the authority of Scripture as supreme."
Yes they appealed to Scripture. They also claimed divine authority. You keep forgetting that.
"Wrong. How can a lib. Prot. church which does not actually hold Scripture as the supreme wholly inspired and accurate word of God be consistent with Protestantism's starting principles?"
If one’s system precludes the ability to distinguish articles of faith from opinion, then one also precludes the ability to identify any proposed religious authority as having any greater authority than that of plausible opinion. That holds for "Scripture" (however that may be tentatively defined according to Protestantism's principles) as an authority as well as any other proposed authority. Affirming scriptural inerrancy/inspiration just becomes yet another opinion among others, according *to that principle*. That's why lib Protestants denying inerrancy are not violating Protestantism's starting principles. The inspiration, inerrancy, extent/scope of the canon (let alone that SS is the rule of faith) remain ever-provisional opinion. Semper reformanda.
"You can however appeal to their rejection of an infallible authority as determinative of Truth"
Yep - so Protestantism cannot offer articles of faith. If it could, it wouldn't reject infallible authority nor would it blast Rome for her claims.
"Please. Do not resort to the typical RC idea that the authority of Scripture (if not the universe) began with her. "
It's a simple fact that the church was operating for decades before Scripture was complete, let alone fully identified.
"if the Judaism could win the argument"
It's amazing how freely you reduce faith to rationalism. Articles of faith aren't just matters of "best arguments". A believer in the NT wouldn't constantly keep debating Christ/Apostles after submitting to their authority.
"the Lord and His disciples met the Scripturally literate on their own grounds"
Yes, and they also had divine authority. Appeal to Scripture does not entail SS (again).
"The NT does not negate the authority of the OT, but affirms it by fulfilling it, while invoking it for support."
Rome does not negate the authority of Scripture, but affirms it while invoking it for support.
"Which interpretation, and its authority, is subject to fallible variant interpretation by her popes and subjects in word or deed."
Yes, it's so difficult to interpret Mary was bodily assumed, or Christ is divine, or salvation can be lost. These are a sampling of irreformable teachings Rome can offer consistent with her own principles. Protestantism can offer nothing but plausible provisional opinion consistent with its own principles, including its bedrock foundation of the canon and SS.
"I understand it must be hard to imagine God no needing the IM of Rome, but like it or not, God established both writings and men of God as being so without a perpetual IM."
Apparently Christ, Apostles, prophets did not need divine authority or infallibility. And apparently God only established a "fallible collection" that is ever-provisional as the sole rule of faith.
"They appeal to fallible human reasoning in seeking to establish Scripture and the IM., then reject human reasoning as able to correctly discern what is Scripture and its meaning if they reject it as supporting Rome, under the premise that they need the IM to do so."
This once again ignores the analogy of the NT believer submitting to Christ/Apostles authority. Such a believer would use his fallible reasoning to evaluate the credibility of claimants. After submitting to Christ/Apostles, he would not then be justified in holding their teachings ever-hostage to his changing provisional opinions (though of course faith seeks understanding so he would still investigate teachings he did not fully understand at first).
(end)
"they appealed to Scriptural substantiation for their very claim to divine authority?"
They appealed to both Scripture and their divine authority.
"Do you think they would have gotten far preaching Buddha? Your argument continues to make those claims superfluous."
Of course not. They appealed to Scripture to support their teaching. Just as Rome does. They appealed to tradition to support their teaching. Just as Rome does. They appealed to divine authority to support their teaching. Just as Rome does. Stop playing false dichotomies.
"you keep trying this but to be consistent you would have no reason to take non-infallible OT authority seriously, since it was possible it could be wrong."
You keep conflating natural and supernatural. Divine revelation must be taken on the authority of another. Divine revelation is infallible by definition.
"contrary to the premise that "what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" which presupposes some fundamentals"
That premise itself (SS) is offered as only a provisional opinion by Protestantism's and its confessions' own standards. The same goes for the "fundamentals" such as the canon, inspiration, inerrancy. Secondly, to be consistent with that premise, you must be able to establish those 4 doctrines by that premise.
"It is actually dependent upon its conclusion that an IM is essential to discern what is of God, which is the recourse when appeal to evidence fails to convince, as expressed here."
What is essential to discern what is of God from what is of opinion is a coherent way to do so. Rome makes claims that allow for that, although they could be wrong. Protestantism does not even make such a claim in the first place.
"Rather, since his assent to core truths was based upon the weight of evidence, thus he can contend for it as having a solid basis"
Once again we see the free admission divine revelation and faith is reduced to stark rationalism and probable conclusions. A house built on ever-shifting sands.
"Nor does it escape the need for interpretation, as RCs can differ on which teachings are infallible, and their meanings to varying degrees."
Only one such teaching is needed to show the difference. And many can be offered.
"The Law became the supreme standard for obedience and testing/establishing both further men and writings of God. "
More incoherence. The supreme standard tests claims that are then added to and modify the supreme standard. It's more OT SSism that White realized doesn't work.
"You are not debating White despite your fixation with him, nor do i need to defend what you think he would conclude."
Quite right but as I said, he encapsulates mainstream Protestant thought because your perspective is incoherent.
"Admit that both men and writings were recognized and established and authoritative as being of God without a perpetual infallible magisterium,"
You appeal to Christ in establishing the authority of the OT. Christ had divine authority and was infallible. So looks like you already proved it to yourself. "Recognized" - if that's the case why was the canon so fluid in Judaism?
"Do you really think Scripture began with Rome"
Scripture and its recognition came out of Tradition which you reject in kicking the ladder.
Steve,
"An interpretation needn't be infallible to be right. Fallible people are right some of the time."
You tied sound interpretation to divine authority. Is divine authority fallible?
"What necessary contribution does infallibility make to a correct interpretation?"
So why does Protestantism fear it like the plague?
"The church of Rome can't make good on that claim."
Rome doesn't offer any infallible/irreformable teaching? If it offers one such article, it's made good on (and is consistent with) the claim.
"You're ducking the issue of whether a newly-found letter of Paul would add to the deposit of faith"
Public revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle, resulting in a fixed deposit of faith. That is irreformable doctrine. A newly discovered letter would not alter that public revelation has ended. You're free to offer how Protestantism can affirm that public revelation has ended as irreformable.
"The addition of a newly-found letter of Paul wouldn't change the principle."
So the addition of the NT did not change the principle. So the principle of SS can operate without a full canon. What about without a full book. What if we have a single verse - is that sufficient as the sole rule of faith? Isn't a "canonical hermeneutic" essential to SS?
"That's how it worked during the Intertestamental period."
So the oral torah/tradition was not in effect during the IT period?
"God doesn't require me to posit an "irreformable" baseline. You keep imposing that extraneous category onto the discussion. But that's not a divine mandate."
Is it a divine mandate that Scripture is infallible? Or are you imposing that extraneous category onto SS discussions? Divine revelation is infallible by definition.
"Who said a newly-found Pauline letter must be compared against a baseline standard? Every Pauline letter is a standard in its own right."
I see. So how do you evaluate psuedo-Pauline letters from the genuine article? Doesn't a "canonical hermeneutic" apply in evaluating credibility of proposed writings?
"You've done nothing to justify your a priori insistence that articles of faith must meet a condition of "irreformability" over and above the condition of being true."
Can something be true without being irreformable? If articles of faith are simply provisional opinion and can never rise above that (hence the repeated denials of irreformability), great.
"Divine revelation is "irreformable" insofar as truth never needs to be corrected. However, it's reformable insofar as progressive revelation (during the period of public revelation) augments divine revelation and/or articles of faith."
I see - so we are still in the era of progressive revelation now? If not, why the persistent a priori denial of irreformability applied to articles of faith?
"Once again, you disregard the elementary distinction between true and false belief. You also fail to show why true belief never counts as knowledge."
As I already pointed out, a person can hold that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. If a Jew randomly falls to Christ's feet and starts following him even though he's heard nothing about his claims to divine authority, even though objectively he is right, would he have actually been submitting in faith and commended by God? Protestants get lots of things right. But they are just correct *opinions*. It never gets above that, due to the nature of the starting claims/principles - it shot itself in the foot before the race even started.
"You have a paper theory which you refuse to compare with the actual output of your denomination."
Do you think conservative RC scholars do not exist?
(cont)
"Your persistent deficiency in refusing to acknowledge and engage counterarguments betrays a lack of good faith on your part."
You're free to point out what I've persistently failed to engage.
"I reject your arbitrary and impious conceptual scheme."
Impious? Christ/Apostles didn't value sheer fideism and incoherent rules of faith. Faith works with reason, not against it. This is like Mormons or Muslims offering "counterarguments".
"That's a tacit admission that your own position is indefensible, which is why you constantly shift the onus onto the Protestant."
Please. You employ tu quoques all over the place as if they are sufficient - I guess that is tacit admission of defeat on your part. Oh but this itself was an evasion I just made right? No I'm answering you on your own terms.
And yes, the point is to see if Protestantism is consistent and coherent given its own principles. I do not say Rome wins by default. But if Protestantism cannot meet that standard, so much for it.
"Let's plug that into Calvinism."
Calvinism is a set of doctrines that presuppose many things. Those presuppositions are either irreformable or they are not. If they're irreformable, I'd like to know how given Protestant principles.
"These aren't accidentally true beliefs, but divinely intended true beliefs. That wouldn't be mere "opinion." That would be justified true belief."
Is justified true belief irreformable or not? Secondly, how would one falsify "divinely-guided process which aims at the formation of true beliefs" which you criticize Rome for lacking? Any Muslim or Mormon could use your exact same argument - I doubt you'd be swayed.
"It generates an infinite regress. What's the criterion for your criterion?"
There was no infinite regress when NT believers submitted to Christ/Apostles claims to divine authority.
"I already corrected you on your cutesy parallel between the Roman magisterium and a "scholarly magisterium.""
By saying you don't submit to scholars - even though you rely on them to weigh arguments and come to reasonable conclusions. Which then yields only ever-provisional probable opinion.
"It's not as if your supposed alternative can bypass the circumstances in which God places each individual."
My supposed alternative says it has divine authority to identify (irreformable) articles of faith. It is not subject to the ever-shifting seas of competing scholarship and evidence that can never offer such.
"The question at issue isn't whether divine revelation is infallible, but whether faith must be infallible."
Um no, the question is very much whether divine revelation is infallible.
"You haven't begun to demonstrate that what you require of Christians is what God requires of Christians. Rather, you impose artificial standards and conditions in defiance of what God actually demands. Protestantism doesn't claim more than God claims. "
Divine revelation is infallible you agree. So it's hardly an artificial standard by your own admission.
"That's your claim, not theirs, which you make in spite of what they say."
I repeat, so Christ and the Apostles claims to divine authority were completely superfluous then? Rome makes the claim. Protestantism does not.
And I'm telling readers to believe Jn 20:31 on the same basis they should believe 2 Peter and reject Shepherd of Hermas.
"A reader doesn't need any warrant over and above the document itself. That's how it's stated."
And the document has to be reliably identified. According to your perspective, the reader should not believe the long ending of Mark, Johannine Comma, Luke 23:34, etc although "that's how it's stated".
"Your position is nothing short of impious. "
No my position points out that God ordained a coherent rule of faith, not an incoherent one.
(end)
"To begin with, I've done that on many occasions."
Yes according to your ever-provisional opinion of your self-selected scholary magisterium.
"God identifies it for them by handing them the finished product. For instance, God providentially gives them a copy of a Protestant Bible."
God identifies it for them by handing them the finished product. For instance, God providentially gives them a copy of the Koran or book of Mormon.
"Take the PBC's "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (1993)."
Yes and the PBC is a consulting arm to the Magisterium (as it was made in 1971), not the magisterium itself.
"In practice, they use the same toolkit as Protestants."
Read Benedict's Verbum Domini and the section "The Interpretation Of Sacred Scripture In The Church" to see the proper heremeneutical balance.
"Even the pope is bound by the deposit of faith."
Correct.
"On the other hand, since the pope is the supreme interpreter of Scripture and tradition alike, they have no independent meaning or authority."
Since the Apostles interpreted Scripture and tradition alike, they have no independent meaning or authority.
"For he's not contradicting dogma or the deposit of faith. He's "interpreting" dogma or the deposit of faith. That's the sense in which your system is unfalsifiable."
This reduces all development to contradiction. Something can be understood deeper and develop without contradicting what came before. Chucking Romans, saying Mary is eternal or Nicaea endorses Arianism is a contradiction. You complain Rome isn't falsifiable. I'm giving you just a sampling of how it would be falsified. Protestantism has had 500 years to come up with these obvious contradictions and hasn't yet done it - should be quite simple (and no, foisting one's own definition of how infallibility should work to then show contradiction doesn't fly).
"Let's see. Catholic apologists run around amassing evidence for Rome from sundry sources. Catholic apologists will never become competent or expert in OT studies, NT studies, patristics, church history, canon law, liturgics, dogmatic theology, &c."
Yup.
"Thus their case for Roman Catholicism can never rise higher than the conflicting tentative conclusions of the scholars they sub-select for. Their faith in the Roman church is never more than ever-provisional opinion."
This completely misses the point about something changing pre and post submission. An NT believer evaluated the claims of credibility Apostles/Christ offered. That does not mean after submitting he would continue to hold their current and future teachings in a dock perpetually to continually re-evaluate to see if they meet his current provisional criteria and threshold of acceptance. If he did that, he would not have submitted to their claims in the first place - nothing would have change pre and post submission. In Protestantism, nothing changes - everything remains ever-provisional probable conclusions by virtue of the rejection of the claims in the first place.
"Free free to count yourself out. God isn't graveling for your consideration."
So the Apostles didn't actually try to make claims worthy of consideration. They just walked around aimlessly or acted no different than some random Jewish teacher offering interpretations of the OT.
Well, the Popes didn't always have popemobiles and websites, that is true.
All you are doing is testifying to your lack of evidence and valid argument to refute the evidence against you, and insolently resorting to sarcasm is a poor substitute.
The problem is not popemobiles but the lack of a Scriptural vehicle which provides your supreme, exalted, infallible, perpetuated Petrine papacy.
And that teaches that without an infallible magisterium no one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, or has any way to make correct theological statements, and that supremacy necessarily translates into infallibility.
It remains that once the Law was written, Scripture became the supreme infallible standard to which further truth claims were tested by. And in the light of which further complimentary writings were recognized and established as being of God, as were men, all without an infallible magisterium. Nor does supremacy necessarily translate into infallibility.
Even without complete available Bibles, the supreme standard is the written, testable, transcendent word of God, by which all preaching is ultimately tested by. And which provides for the church, etc.
PBJ,
"And that teaches that without an infallible magisterium no one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, or has any way to make correct theological statements,"
Did I say that? No.
PBJ, there are indeed SOME things in the writings of Paul that are hard to understand and that silly people read unto their own destruction according to Peter.
Eventually, a dispute will arise as to how to interpret some things in the Bible. Then we must turn to an extra-biblical authority.
"and that supremacy necessarily translates into infallibility."
Absolutely!
"It remains that once the Law was written, Scripture became the supreme infallible standard to which further truth claims were tested by. And in the light of which further complimentary writings were recognized and established as being of God, as were men, all without an infallible magisterium."
When did this happen?
"Nor does supremacy necessarily translate into infallibility."
Wrong.
"Even without complete available Bibles, the supreme standard is the written, testable, transcendent word of God, by which all preaching is ultimately tested by."
Not true! All scripture must be submitted to the authority of John Calvin, no? ( Or whoever is head of your denomination. )
Where are you getting your facts? RCs do not debate what the Popes have taught.
Where are getting your glasses, or facts on what I wrote? Once again you evidence either cognitive dissonance, blindness or deception.
Here it is again:
Under the Catholic model for determining Truth, RCs debate how many binding teachings there are, as well as their meaning. Conservatives interpret past historical teachings as being contrary to how their church interprets them in modern V2 teaching, while liberals interpret the latter as supporting them.
They both look to lower levels of the magisterium to interpret them, which interpretation is manifest and conveyed in word and in deed.
And therefore each side interprets the non-infallible words and actions of the pope as being consistent or inconsistent with church teaching.
Thus the need and problems of interpretation cannot be escaped, and which requires the strongest case being made for a Truth claim in order to obtain victory over competing claims.
Which victory the NT church gained, with what was written being the supreme transcendent standard which further teaching was examined by.
And yes, all men have been redeemed on Calvary; Catholics, Muslims, atheists and even you.
Whether or not you will be finally saved is another question altogether.
Wrong. Believing Christ was a ransom for all, (1Tim. 2:6) and believing that all have appropriated what this provides for and realized "the restoration of man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ," (CE>Redemption) and thus are "children of God of the first class," are two different things.
And what the pope said was that atheists are saved:
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class!...We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there." -Pope Francis — http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/father-the-atheists-even-the-atheists
And disagreement simply illustrates how RCs can interpret the interpreter, even if in non-infallible teaching, but which RCs look for as interpreting official teaching.
And which Francisology is consistent with other interpretive statements subject to interpretation by RCs:
Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs. "We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing," the pope said. — http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403144.htm;
Plus the first controversial interview of Francis by Scalfari, of questionable value (http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview - yet published with Vatican permission and which the pope seemed happy with as he granted Scalfari two more interviews), are these reconstructed recollections:
"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."
"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."
"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place." - http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/?ref=search
PBJ,
"Thus the need and problems of interpretation cannot be escaped, and which requires the strongest case being made for a Truth claim in order to obtain victory over competing claims."
RCs do not deny interpretation - humans are not robots. But that does not mean we remain in the same stance before and after submission. It is analogous to the NT believer submitting to Christ/Apostles authority and fallibly interpreting their teachings vs submitting to some random Jewish teacher offering his self-admitted provisional opinions. The former allows for a change pre and post submission, the latter does not. As Ronald Knox wrote:
"I could not have imagined, if I had not heard it with my own ears, the accent of surprise with which Protestants suddenly light upon this startling discovery, that the belief we Catholics have in authority is based upon an act of private judgment. How on earth could they ever suppose we taught otherwise?...
Is it really so difficult to see that a revealed religion demands, from its very nature, a place for private judgment and a place for authority? A place for private judgment, in determining that the revelation itself comes from God, in discovering the Medium through which that revelation comes to
us, and the rule of faith by which we are enabled to determine what is, and what is not, revealed. A place for authority to step in, when these preliminary investigations are over, and say "Now, be careful, for you are out of your depth here. How many Persons subsist in the Unity of the Divine Nature, what value and what power underlies the mystery of sacramental worship, how Divine Grace acts upon the human will--these and a hundred
other questions are questions which your human reason cannot investigate for itself, and upon which it can pronounce no sentence, since it moves in the natural not in the supernatural order. At this point, then, you must begin to believe by hearsay; from this point onwards you must ask, not to be convinced, but to be taught.""
You continue to reduce things of faith to rationalism and probable provisional arguments/conclusions - "strongest case" and the like rather than basing them on divine authority.
"with what was written being the supreme transcendent standard which further teaching was examined by."
Here again we see the odd appeal to SS being the rule of faith in the apostolic era. You have danced around saying you only mean the OT was materially sufficient. The problem is SS does not posit mere material sufficiency, but formal sufficiency. So appealing to OT material sufficiency does no work for you, let alone establish it as the "supreme transcendent standard" in apostolic times.
"You tied sound interpretation to divine authority. Is divine authority fallible?"
You're being evasive and equivocal. An interpretation of divine revelation needn't be infallible to be authoritative. If revelation is infallible, then a fallible, but correct interpretation, has derivative authority.
I asked: "What necessary contribution does infallibility make to a correct interpretation?"
You reply: "So why does Protestantism fear it like the plague?"
Notice that Cletus didn't answer the question.
"Rome doesn't offer any infallible/irreformable teaching? If it offers one such article, it's made good on (and is consistent with) the claim."
The operative word is "if." You've done nothing to demonstrate that the conditional is true.
"Public revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle, resulting in a fixed deposit of faith. That is irreformable doctrine. A newly discovered letter would not alter that public revelation has ended."
And if that's the case, then a newly-discovered Pauline letter wouldn't alter sola scriptura.
"You're free to offer how Protestantism can affirm that public revelation has ended as irreformable."
You seem to lack adaptive intelligence. You try to dictate the terms of the debate (e.g. irreformability). I've explained to you why I reject your framework.
When I do so, you offer no counterargument. Rather, you simply push the rewind button and replay your prerecorded message.
That's fine with me. All you have is slogans. You have nothing to back up the slogans.
"Isn't a 'canonical hermeneutic' essential to SS?"
The OT was the "canonical hermeneutic" during the Intertestamental period. The OT and NT form the "canonical hermeneutic" after NT times.
"So the oral torah/tradition was not in effect during the IT period?"
Another example of your persistent equivocations.
i) To begin with, the oral torah was often wrong. Jesus frequently took exception to the oral torah in public debates with the Jewish authorities.
ii) To the extent that oral torah/tradition sometimes represented a valid interpretation or valid application of the OT, that's a derivative authority. It has no inherent authority.
"Is it a divine mandate that Scripture is infallible?"
Modern Catholicism treats Scripture as eminently fallible.
"I see. So how do you evaluate psuedo-Pauline letters from the genuine article? Doesn't a 'canonical hermeneutic' apply in evaluating credibility of proposed writings?"
i) We're dealing with a hypothetical case, so it depends on what type of hypothetical verification we propose. That doesn't require a canonical hermeneutic.
ii) Furthermore, a "canonical hermeneutic" isn't necessary to validate actual individual books of Scripture.
"Can something be true without being irreformable?"
i) Why do you need something to be more than truth? Why do you act like truth is inadequate?
ii) And, yes, I already explained to you how something can be reformable in one respect, but irreformable in another. You're not paying attention.
"I see - so we are still in the era of progressive revelation now?"
Are you uncomprehending? I didn't say or suggest we're still in the era of progressive revelation. Rather, I made the point that during the period of progressive revelation, divine revelation is both "reformable" and "irreformable" in different respects.
Do you think it's clever for you to offer these snappy, unintelligent comebacks? Don't try to be clever at the expense of intellectual honesty or comprehension.
"If not, why the persistent a priori denial of irreformability applied to articles of faith?"
You think it's cute to take my words (e.g. "a priori") and put them into your replies. You need to master the distinction between parallel phrasing and parallel arguments. You're not presenting parallel argument. You're just resorting to a superficial verbal tactic.
The truth of divine revelation a pervasive biblical theme. My appeal to the truth-criterion is not a priori. By contrast, your irreformability-criterion is an a prior imposition on what God requires of us.
i) I don't deny that a priori. I deny that because it runs counter to our revealed duties. That's a posteriori.
ii) Moreover, inasmuch as you persistently refuse to present any evidence for your criterion, I'm well within my rights to deny it.
"If a Jew randomly falls to Christ's feet and starts following him even though he's heard nothing about his claims to divine authority, even though objectively he is right, would he have actually been submitting in faith and commended by God? Protestants get lots of things right. But they are just correct *opinions*. It never gets above that, due to the nature of the starting claims/principles - it shot itself in the foot before the race even started."
i) I notice that when your claims are challenged, you have nothing in reserve. So you just repeat the original claim. You don't rebut the counterargument.
ii) You mindlessly recite your mantra about "opinions." I've already corrected you on that. Let's go back to my example of reliabilism.
Traditionally, knowledge was defined as true belief. However, true belief is a necessary, but insufficient condition for knowledge inasmuch as the cognizer may have a true belief without adequate grounds or evidence. The link between truth and belief may just be coincidental. A lucky guess.
So the challenge was how to redefine knowledge to avoid "epistemic luck." What added condition (i.e. "justification," "warrant") in tandem with true belief converts true belief into knowledge?
According to process reliabilism, knowledge is true belief caused in a suitable way. A cognizer knows a proposition if the proposition is true and his belief is produced by a reliable process. Likewise, that's how his belief is justified.
I then sketched a model whereby God providentially cultivates true justified (or warranted) theological beliefs by having predestined some people to be indoctrinated in an epistemic environment where they are exposed to true theological propositions, and where, as a result of monergistic regeneration, they are receptive to the revealed truths they read or hear.
That isn't mere "opinion." It's not a matter of luck or coincidence that they have true theological beliefs. Rather, that's the result of a divinely-orchestrated process aimed at the cultivation true beliefs. As such, that counts as knowledge.
Now, you may try to attack the reality of that scenario. But you haven't even shown that, as a matter of *principle*, such beliefs fall short of knowledge (i.e. defeasible opinions).
iii) Moreover, it's not as if you have even outlined your own preferred epistemology. All I've gotten from you is a vague appeal to "first principles." So what is your religious epistemology, or epistemology in general? Is it some version of foundationalism?
"Do you think conservative RC scholars do not exist?"
i) To begin with, there are no contemporary RC Bible scholars of any prominence who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture.
ii) Moreover, if a denomination is so latitudinarian that it tolerates liberals and conservatives alike–with liberals in the dominant position, no less–then that's a theologically compromised denomination. To have a few token conservatives is hardly exculpatory.
"Christ/Apostles didn't value sheer fideism and incoherent rules of faith."
i) To begin with, all you've done is to assert that the Protestant rule of faith is incoherent or fideistic.
ii) You don't accept what Christ or the Apostles say on their own authority. You only accept what your denomination gives you permission to accept.
"You employ tu quoques all over the place as if they are sufficient."
And I'm prepared to back them up if challenged. You, by contrast, resort to tu quoques as a rhetorical gimmick with nothing in reserve when challenged.
"No I'm answering you on your own terms."
To the contrary, I give evidence for my claims. You do nothing of the kind.
"Is justified true belief irreformable or not?"
You're playing hopscotch, where you jump back and forth from one square to the other.
The question at issue is whether a justified true belief is knowledge in contrast to true opinion. You haven't shown that irreformability is a necessary condition for knowledge.
And if it's not a necessary condition for knowledge, then why do you demand an additional condition over and above knowledge?
"Secondly, how would one falsify 'divinely-guided process which aims at the formation of true beliefs' which you criticize Rome for lacking? Any Muslim or Mormon could use your exact same argument - I doubt you'd be swayed."
One of your problems is an inability on your part to keep track of either your own argument or mine.
i) The question at issue, as you yourself often cast the issue, is whether Protestant beliefs are necessarily reducible to "mere opinion." You are asserting that, as a matter of *principle*, these never rise above the level of "opinion."
To rebut your argument, my model of theistic process reliabilism needn't be true. I don't have to prove that that's actually the case.
That's because this is a question of principle. In responding to you on your own grounds, it's sufficient for me to show that Protestant beliefs are not "mere opinion" as a matter of principle. Get it?
ii) Second, my model of theistic process reliabilism dovetails nicely with the Reformed doctrine of providence. So the evidence for the Reformed doctrine of providence also counts as evidence for theistic process reliabilism.
iii) Since Mormonism doesn't espouse meticulous providence, a Mormon couldn't use the exact same argument. Not even close.
Muslim metaphysics ranges a long a spectrum. However, even if a Muslim could use "the same exact argument," that's a red herring. I'm not using this argument to prove Protestantism.
Even if a Muslim could use the same argument in isolation, that doesn't mean he can use it to defend Islam apart from all other considerations.
iv) BTW, given the favorable things that Vatican II says about Islam, it would behoove you to avoid that comparison. It boomerangs against your own position.
"There was no infinite regress when NT believers submitted to Christ/Apostles claims to divine authority."
i) You don't submit to their claims of authority. Rather, you submit to the pope's claims of authority. You accept what Christ or the Apostles say on condition that your denomination allows you to accept what they say.
ii) Your response is an exercise in misdirection. You haven't shown had your criterion can avoid generating an infinite regress. If you insist that we cannot submit to Scripture directly, that there must be some criterion external to Scripture to authorize or warrant submission, then what's the basis for your belief in that extrabiblical criterion? By what additional criterion do you evaluate the claims of the papacy?
"By saying you don't submit to scholars - even though you rely on them to weigh arguments and come to reasonable conclusions."
Consulting commentaries is not an argument from authority. I don't accept what they say on authority. Rather, they cite evidence and give reasons for their conclusions. That's a transparent process that's open to the scrutiny of the reader.
"Which then yields only ever-provisional probable opinion."
i) As I've explained to you, that doesn't follow on theories of knowledge like theistic process reliabilism. You need to learn how to engage the argument.
ii) And if what you say is true, then you're in the same bind. For in making a historical case for the claims of Rome, you yourself "rely on patrologists and church historians to weigh arguments and come to reasonable conclusions. Which then yields only ever-provisional probable opinion."
"My supposed alternative says it has divine authority to identify (irreformable) articles of faith. It is not subject to the ever-shifting seas of competing scholarship and evidence that can never offer such."
How do you established your supposed alternative in the first place? You rely on historical evidence. Alleged evidence for Petrine primacy, Roman primacy, papal primacy, papal infallibility, &c.
That forces you to dive right into the "ever-shifting wave" of competing interpretations by patrologists, church historians, canon lawyers, &c.
Even if the papacy is a short-cut to certainty once you arrive at the papacy, there's no shortcut for getting to the papacy. And if you rely on probabilities in making your case for the papacy, then you will end no higher than where you began. You're chasing a receding mirage.
"So it's hardly an artificial standard by your own admission."
Once again, you play hopscotch by jumping back and forth between different categories. The question at issue is whether your condition (e.g. "irreformability") to "warrant the assent of faith" is an artificial standard. That imposes something on Christians (and OT/2nd Temple Jews) which God doesn't require of us. And you haven't begun to show that God requires that of us.
"so Christ and the Apostles claims to divine authority were completely superfluous then?"
You don't credit their claims to divine authority.
"And I'm telling readers to believe Jn 20:31 on the same basis they should believe 2 Peter and reject Shepherd of Hermas."
Which is not the basis that John gave. You substitute a different basis, thereby rejecting John's authority. You refuse to accept what he said on his own stated grounds.
"And the document has to be reliably identified."
Not if it's true. You fail to distinguish to draw an elementary and essential distinction between truth and verification. Truth doesn't require verification. If Jn 20:31 is true, then the promise holds truth regardless of whether we have independent evidence.
"God identifies it for them by handing them the finished product. For instance, God providentially gives them a copy of the Koran or book of Mormon."
i) Once more, you're unable to keep track of your own argument as well as mine. Try to think rather than reflexively reacting.
I'm not discussing how to prove the Bible or disprove the Koran or the book of Mormon. Are you capable of absorbing that distinction?
ii) BTW, you need to stop citing the Koran as a counterexample. It's your own sect, at Vatican II, that said Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
iii) The question at issue is whether Protestants need an infallible church to know true doctrine. I've presented a mechanism. God can place an individual in a cognitive environment that engenders true theological beliefs. Indeed, this providential process is divinely aimed at the production of true beliefs. The resultant belief isn't mere opinion. Rather, that amounts to knowledge.
That mechanism doesn't require the individual to either start from scratch or apply a criterion. Rather, he's on the receiving end of that propitious process. He's the beneficiary.
And this doesn't mean the end-result can't be subject to types of confirmation (if true) or disconfirmation (if false). But knowing the truth isn't contingent on proving the truth.
"Yes and the PBC is a consulting arm to the Magisterium (as it was made in 1971), not the magisterium itself."
An example of "ever-provisional opinion."
"Read Benedict's Verbum Domini and the section 'The Interpretation Of Sacred Scripture In The Church' to see the proper heremeneutical balance."
What Roman Catholic commentators have you read?
"Since the Apostles interpreted Scripture and tradition alike, they have no independent meaning or authority."
That's more cute than acute. Look at how two popes go about prooftexting Marian dogma. After going through the motions, this is how it ends:
"by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
"by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart."
That's not how Jesus and the Apostles reason from the Scriptures. In the Gospels, in Acts, in Romans, in Hebrews, they don't fall back on an appeal to their personal authority to leverage the interpretation. Rather, they appeal to reason. They use logical arguments which a reader or listener can follow for himself.
"This reduces all development to contradiction. Something can be understood deeper and develop without contradicting what came before."
Classic, post-Newman special pleading.
"I'm giving you just a sampling of how it would be falsified."
That's a throwaway concession. For you it can only be falsified in theory, never in practice.
"Protestantism has had 500 years to come up with these obvious contradictions and hasn't yet done it…"
I provided specific documentation which you've studiously dodged. Your faith is all theory, sealed away from contaminating contact with reality.
"This completely misses the point about something changing pre and post submission. An NT believer evaluated the claims of credibility Apostles/Christ offered. That does not mean after submitting he would continue to hold their current and future teachings in a dock perpetually to continually re-evaluate to see if they meet his current provisional criteria and threshold of acceptance. If he did that, he would not have submitted to their claims in the first place - nothing would have change pre and post submission. In Protestantism, nothing changes - everything remains ever-provisional probable conclusions by virtue of the rejection of the claims in the first place."
You've boxed yourself into a hopeless dilemma. You scorn "opinion," however reasonable. You scorn scholarship as "ever-provisional." Yet that's your bridge to Rome. Your conclusion is only as solid as the process by which you arrive at your conclusion.
Suppose (ex hypothesi) that if the church of Rome is infallible (under specified conditions), then Catholics can know theological truths.
But that only pushes the problem back a step. How can you know if church of Rome is infallible? You can't. You can only believe that, based on juggling probabilities. Based on sifting "every-provisional scholarship."
You can't invoke your opinion regarding the infallibility of Rome to retroactively turn your opinion into knowledge. You believe that you believe in "irreformable" articles of faith. But you don't know that. You can't know that. For you can't bootstrap infallibility from your fallible starting-point.
What you've really give us is the proverbial leap of faith into the dark. You simply hope it's true. But your evidence, even on your own partisan interpretation, is merely probable and provisional.
Yes, you can drive an artificial wedge between pre and post submission, but that's make-believe. That's you pretending that post submission is more certain than pre submission. Yet you don't have any mechanism to convert pre submission uncertainty into post submission certainty.
"Is it really so difficult to see that a revealed religion demands, from its very nature, a place for private judgment and a place for authority? A place for private judgment, in determining that the revelation itself comes from God, in discovering the Medium through which that revelation comes to us, and the rule of faith by which we are enabled to determine what is, and what is not, revealed. A place for authority to step in, when these preliminary investigations are over, and say 'Now, be careful, for you are out of your depth here.'"
i) That's an exercise in mirror-gazing. The authority that "steps in" is just a projection of private judgment. in you private judgment, such an authority exists.
*Given* your authority source, that could then confirm your "preliminary investigations." But your authority source is not a given. That's not something you have at the outset. Rather, that will never be more than a reflection of the state of your preliminary investigations, at whatever stage you gave up. The "Medium" is the face you see at the bottom of the well, staring back at you.
ii) Judaism was a revealed religion. But there was no infallible tiebreaker in 2nd temple Judaism. That's why you had a profusion of Jewish sects and schools of thought in the 1C. Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots. Rabbi Shimmai. Rabbi Hillel. And so on and so forth.
Everyone,
Steve snarled to another blogger he disdains,
"... Are you capable of absorbing that distinction...?"
That honey-tongued ol' Steve really has a way with words, eh? So patient, so charitable, such an example of how to talk to people.
Actually, this sort of rhetoric reveals that Steve has nothing to say and is trying to make up for it with bluster.
Cletus Van Damme responds to,
• "It provides for what i just described, and thus in principle for a canon being established. Affirm or deny."
Easily denied. Tradition and ecclesiastical authority are needed which is why Rome holds to STM-triad.
Why assert or live in denial? M as supreme determines what S+T is and means, while of course discerning both men and writings of God involves a form of “tradition” and (sometimes belatedly) non-infallible magisterial authority, but which does not deny my position, nor support yours. For Scripture reveals this happening, but what was written became the standard against which preaching and further truth claims were examined by, not the premise of assured magisterial infallibility, which is what you need to show was/is essential.
You seem to think by showing a form of tradition as being operative then that negates SS in principal, and establishes an infallible magisterium remembering the Assumption and making it a binding doctrine under the premise of assured magisterial veracity, but it does not.
I have not even been arguing that SS was always the means by which Truth was ascertained, nor can you argue that Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium was always operative. But once God manifest provides something in grace for a function, such as the Law being given, and the priesthood, souls must operate according to the function of such in God's plan. Pagans will be sentenced according to what they did by nature as correspondent or not to the Law, (Rm. 2) but once the Law was made known to them, that was their supreme standard.
At the giving of the Law, Moses was the supreme authority under God, but after the giving of the Law, then it became the supreme standard, thus the constant call such as “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.” (Joshua 1:8)
Which also means that even though the magisterium had strong authority and was instrumental in providing and preserving Truth, yet it was not above correction with the written word of God being looked to. And which is how the church began, with itinerant preachers reproving the magisterium in accordance with Scripture.
Though as with writings of God, they were men of God regardless of the opinions of men, yet the issue is how were they were established as being so. It remains that the NT church began contrary to the Roman model, as it was the common people who correctly judged itinerant preachers as being of God, who established their Truth claims and authority upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured magisterial veracity.
Divine revelation is infallible, yet some of which Truths even a pagan could speak (Acts 17:28) as well as an anti-Christ Jewish priest, but which simply does not translate into perpetual assured infallibility whenever a man or office will speak universally on faith and morals. And under the latter cultic premise of perpetual magisterial veracity, then error, including her own infallibility, can be taught as assuredly infallible truth.
Cletus Van Damme responds to,
• "It provides for what i just described, and thus in principle for a canon being established. Affirm or deny."
Easily denied. Tradition and ecclesiastical authority are needed which is why Rome holds to STM-triad.
Why assert or live in denial? M as supreme determines what S+T is and means, while of course discerning both men and writings of God involves a form of “tradition” and (sometimes belatedly) non-infallible magisterial authority, but which does not deny my position, nor support yours. For Scripture reveals this happening, but what was written became the standard against which preaching and further truth claims were examined by, not the premise of assured magisterial infallibility, which is what you need to show was/is essential.
You seem to think by showing a form of tradition as being operative then that negates SS in principal, and establishes an infallible magisterium remembering the Assumption and making it a binding doctrine under the premise of assured magisterial veracity, but it does not.
I have not even been arguing that SS was always the means by which Truth was ascertained, nor can you argue that Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium was always operative. But once God manifest provides something in grace for a function, such as the Law being given, and the priesthood, souls must operate according to the function of such in God's plan. Pagans will be sentenced according to what they did by nature as correspondent or not to the Law, (Rm. 2) but once the Law was made known to them, that was their supreme standard.
At the giving of the Law, Moses was the supreme authority under God, but after the giving of the Law, then it became the supreme standard, thus the constant call such as “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.” (Joshua 1:8)
Which also means that even though the magisterium had strong authority and was instrumental in providing and preserving Truth, yet it was not above correction with the written word of God being looked to. And which is how the church began, with itinerant preachers reproving the magisterium in accordance with Scripture.
Though as with writings of God, they were men of God regardless of the opinions of men, yet the issue is how were they were established as being so. It remains that the NT church began contrary to the Roman model, as it was the common people who correctly judged itinerant preachers as being of God, who established their Truth claims and authority upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured magisterial veracity.
Divine revelation is infallible, yet some of which Truths even a pagan could speak (Acts 17:28) as well as an anti-Christ Jewish priest, but which simply does not translate into perpetual assured infallibility whenever a man or office will speak universally on faith and morals. And under the latter cultic premise of perpetual magisterial veracity, then error, including her own infallibility, can be taught as assuredly infallible truth.
3.
RCs do not treat Scripture as just merely historical accurate documents. That's why its appealed to in defining doctrine, just as Christ/Apostles appealed to it.
Wrong, for as seen in this thread, faced with the problem of holding that her infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what Scripture consistently consists of, and the circularity of appealing to Scripture in order to establish that, RCs do indeed reduce Scripture to being merely a historical accurate document. Then they exclude they could find valid warrant for dissent from the same document. But veracity must be continually established on the same basis by which it originally attained it.
Secondly, Christ/Apostles did not appeal to Scripture as being writings that required an infallible magisterium to ascertain them as being of God, nor as being required to ascertain that the Lord and His apostles themselves were of God. The only status of the magisterium in Scripture as regards veracity is that of being non-infallible, though they can speak Truth from God, and exercise authority.
• "Certainly the apostles had established strong personal credibility"
Bingo - they made the claim to divine authority in the first place. Protestantism does not.
Wrong: they established their claim to authority upon Scriptural substantiation, as Protestantism can only do, versus assured veracity through magisterial historical descent. The latter is what you must prove is the means of God providing, discerning and preserving Truth. (They also did not did not use gambling/Bingo.)
• "But the latter was established upon Scripture"
More cart before the horse. Apostolic tradition was wholly inscripturated according to your position; the NT is not superfluous.
More non-sense. Apostolic tradition/preaching rested upon Scripture being supreme, and providing for them being validly manifested as being of God. Nor did i ever claim that all of what the apostles said was wholly inscripturated, thus the latter to the Laodiceans is missing. But that it is the supreme standard and constrains was is needed for faith and morals in its formal (limited) and material aspects.
• "Nonsense. RC appeal is perfunctory, as it is already determined that Scripture cannot correct her, and her veracity does not rest upon the weight of it (nor is any actually essential), but upon the premise of her assured veracity."
Once again arguing exactly like a Jew to justify rejecting Christ/Apostles.
Wrong, for unlike Rome, the veracity of the Lord and His apostles was not based upon the premise of assured magisterial veracity through formal descent of office, but as said, was made under the premise that their hearers could and would judge rightly, depending upon Scriptural substantiation, versus working to convince them to render implicit trust in them.
You must prove assured magisterial veracity through historical descent is essential for God providing, discerning and preserving Truth.
Have you seen what Jews think of the way Apostles interpret the OT?
What kind of refutation is that? The reaction of some Jews to the way Apostles interpret the OT negates the means by which other Jews though of the way the Apostles and early church interpreted the OT? For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
Yes the NT was complementary and not in contradiction. That is completely different than saying the OT is the "sole supreme standard".
Not so, as it was at that time, as the written word was at any time, as the latter is judged by the former, and this the Qur'an and BOM are shown to be spurious. As the writings of the NT
4.
How can a supreme standard be a standard when it is in the process of being changed?
• “Because Scripture did not begin with Rome, and Scripture was Scripture was any given stage, the NT joining it and thus having its authority."
A non-answer.
Wrong, as your premise that the OT was changed and thus it could not even a standard, but which is both contrary to what we read therein and nonsensical. For the fact that the OT was “changed” in that more complimentary writings were recognized as also being of God does not negate its status, but simply adds more to it. What made the OT authoritative is that it was the wholly inspired word of God, upon which foundation more was added.
• "Instead they convinced the Jews on the basis of Scriptural testimony."
Really - so their claims to divine authority and miracles were completely superfluous. They were just akin to knowledgeable rabbis debating other rabbis.
What kind of Roman reasoning is this? RCs seem to think an infallible magisterium descended from Heaven to start a brand new religion, without a foundation. The Lord and His apostles were of God regardless of whether anyone gave them recognition as being so, but because they were of God then they convinced the people that they were upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Not self-declaration as Rome effectively does.
• “the Lord and His disciples did not appeal to historical descent of office from Moses"
Did they appeal to their divine authority? Once again your argument makes their claims completely superfluous.
They appealed to Scriptural evidence in establishing their Divine authority, as other men did. Once again your argument makes the basis for their claims completely superfluous.
You must show that they appealed assured veracity of office via historical descent, as per Rome.
• "That would not negate the authority of OT Scripture, which i did not say Rome was doing"
Excellent. You see the parallel then.
Parallel? Rather, unlike the apostles, Rome makes herself the supreme irrefutable authority on the basis of assured veracity of office via historical descent, and presumes her infallible magisterium is essential for correctly ascertaining what is of God, and thus she alone is right in any conflict. In contrast, the apostles were preachers of a Messiah promised in the Scriptures, and whose claim to authority and veracity was dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
Rome reasons that Catholic teaching is the supreme law under the premise as it always has the same author as Scripture, thus it is impossible for there to a conflict.
• "but that she makes it secondary by effectively placing herself above it, which is indeed the case."
Now you flounder. I guess Christ/apostles made the OT secondary.
More non-sense based upon the original fallacy that the apostles were like Rome in placing themselves above Scripture by asserting they possessed perpetual assured infallibility of office via historical descent, and thus were to be believed, versus by manifestation of the Truth, with Scripture being the supreme standard for that, establishing their veracity.
Yes they appealed to Scripture. They also claimed divine authority. You keep forgetting that.
Their very claim to divine authority rested upon Scriptural substantiation, directly and indirectly, preaching “the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,” (Romans 1:2). You keep ignoring that.
5.
If one’s system precludes the ability to distinguish articles of faith from opinion, then one also precludes the ability to identify any proposed religious authority as having any greater authority than that of plausible opinion.
Then how could the common people have assurance that John was a “prophet indeed.” And that Isaiah was of God??? For your position is that without an infallible magisterium then one cannot distinguish articles of faith from opinion, and thus you are back to negating warrant for obedience in Scripture under the magisteriums God provided, and required obedience to.
That holds for "Scripture"
Thus once again, lacking a perpetual infallible magisterium, the church began upon what at best would be appeal to merely historically accurate documents, thus with Protestants who had no binding Truths, and could not have assurance that the prophets, and Christ and the apostles really had Divine authority.
That's why lib Protestants denying inerrancy are not violating Protestantism's starting principles.
Which is imaginary, since Protestantism's starting principles were based upon the premise of Scripture being the supreme accurate wholly inspired word of God. Likewise the NT church.
The inspiration, inerrancy, extent/scope of the canon (let alone that SS is the rule of faith) remain ever-provisional opinion.
You mean without an infallible magisterium then no one could profess certain Truths as binding, or could have assurance of Truth, or what men or writings of were God, before Rome. You keep taking pot shots as what you think is contrary to my position but are not, while it remains that you must establish that assured magisterial veracity through historical descent is promised as essential for God providing, discerning and preserving Truth.
However, God throughout Biblical history required obedience to non-infallible authorities passing along Divinely revealed binding Truths, and “obey them that have the rule over you” applies to SS evangelicals as well, and which can require assent to certain established truths. That there is the possibility of error does not negate this authority, nor assurance of Truth, as seen in Scripture. For it requires the veracity of teaching to rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, not the premise of assured magisterial veracity, which is what is novel in Scripture.
Therefore those who hold most strongly to Protestantism's most fundamental starting principle have overall historically contended fo core Truth we both concur on, for rather than being even-changing opinions, they have the most convincing assurance, not on the basis of an imaginary infallible magisterium of men, but on the weight of evidence. By which the church began.
Meanwhile, seeing the sects and confusion of RCs interpreting the interpreters of their church, it is manifest that to varying degrees the meaning of much of church teaching remains ever-provisional opinion. Semper reformanda indeed. Vatican Two did it to EENS, and other things, so why exclude more of it in the future?
But the fact remains that without an infallible magisterium their ca be no binding Truths, as it is possible the magisterium may be wrong, and which charges God with folly by punishing dissent under no- infallible magisteriums.
And just as a evangelical can choose to leave his church due to rejection of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, so can one leave Rome. But such a denier is far more likely to feel at home in Rome.
Yep - so Protestantism cannot offer articles of faith. If it could, it wouldn't reject infallible authority nor would it blast Rome for her claims.
Wrong, as again, it is clear there were binding Truths without an infallible magisterium, and there are also effectively many for evangelical churches, as historically seen by their common contention against cults, etc.
6.
• "Please. Do not resort to the typical RC idea that the authority of Scripture (if not the universe) began with her. "
It's a simple fact that the church was operating for decades before Scripture was complete, let alone fully identified.
Amazing. The above fact that does not mean the authority of Scripture began with her, which is absurd. Rather, the authority of the church would not exist without the authority of Scripture to which it so much appealed.
It's amazing how freely you reduce faith to rationalism. Articles of faith aren't just matters of "best arguments". A believer in the NT wouldn't constantly keep debating Christ/Apostles after submitting to their authority.
Of course, not, as being convinced of the warrant of obedience to an entity due to the weight of evidence, though progressive, does not translate into constantly debating the authority one has chosen to submit to, or a lack of magisterial authority, whether spiritual or civil. Thus all OT and NT believers are to “obey them that have the rule over you,” (Heb. 13:17) But as towards those who sat in the seat of Moses, the possibility of dissent is possible on the premise of a higher unchanging transcendent source.
As with cases of historical dissent to Rome, dissenters can face magisterial censure, but as seen in Scripture, by raising up manifest men of God from without the magisterium is how God often preserved faith, but which you outlaw as regards dissent from a class of ecclesiastical teaching under the premise of an IM, and that allowing dissent based upon appeal to a higher authority would thus be a provisional stand. But which is how the church began. The Jewish magisterium could have rejected apostolic reproof from Scripture, and for church authority, by contending that allowing correction based upon what Scripture (or even Tradition) says was provisional as it rested upon the premise that this was what the source taught, but that they knew better. And which indeed was basically their stance. But as with the people holding John to be a prophet indeed, so also church was established due to souls finding their claims were warranted.
Yet they were not to follow leaders unconditionally, as Paul showed in reproving what Peter was teaching by His actions, and actions constitute the evidence of what one really believes, not mere professions which Rome depends upon for her claim of constancy of faith. Scripture is the only body that is wholly inspired of a God in all its contents, which is never promised to man or an office of men, which Rome depends upon to validate erroneous preserved teachings.
• "the Lord and His disciples met the Scripturally literate on their own grounds"
Yes, and they also had divine authority. Appeal to Scripture does not entail SS (again).
Yes, and the establishment of their divine authority was upon Scriptural substantiation, which means supports Scripture as it being the supreme standard, and which OT provided for the NT and church, etc.
Rome does not negate the authority of Scripture, but affirms it while invoking it for support.
Rather, she presumes that one needs her to be sure what Scripture consists of and means, and thus RCs appeal to Scripture as historical writings which cannot provide assurance of Truth in seeking to persuade souls to submit to her as assuredly infallible. And which is the basis for the assurance of an RC, nothing else being required to ascertain the veracity of her teachings, even future ones. For if she appealed to souls as being able to assuredly discern what Scripture is and means, then one would not need the IM for that. In contrast, the apostles presumed souls could find assurance of the Truth of the gospel upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which their claim to Divine authority was established and maintained, not the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility via historical descent.
7.
Yes, it's so difficult to interpret Mary was bodily assumed, or Christ is divine, or salvation can be lost. These are a sampling of irreformable teachings Rome can offer consistent with her own principles.
Yes, it's not too difficult to interpret Scripture as never testifying that Mary was or would be bodily assumed, that no one but pagans ever prayed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, etc., or that Scripture teaches the virgin birth, resurrection, deity of Christ and His return, among many other fundamentals. The point being that while there are a minority of teachings that are clear, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus among multitudes others, “is subject to fallible variant interpretation by her popes and subjects in word or deed," as said, despite your attempt to ignore it.
And by exalting men above Scripture (as they are the infallible judge of it), and thus making certain ancient stories and practices equal with it, then they can easily perpetuate error, and have.
Protestantism can offer nothing but plausible provisional opinion consistent with its own principles, including its bedrock foundation of the canon and SS.
You mean lacking an infallible magisterial office, no mortal in the Bible could offer anything but plausible provisional opinions since. Rome tries to justify herself as being that infallible magisterium by extrapolating this as being a necessity for realization of the promises of God's preservation, but this is a novel necessity for so doing.
Apparently Christ, Apostles, prophets did not need divine authority or infallibility. And apparently God only established a "fallible collection" that is ever-provisional as the sole rule of faith.
Apparently, you still think a magisterium just came down from heaven and infallibly declared itself infallible and that therefore souls must submit to them. Christ as God was/is infallible, but again, both the Lord and the apostles established their claim to Divine authority upon Scriptural substantiation. The apostles never claimed perpetual assured infallibility of office, nor is Scripturally a necessity for Divine authority, and for providing, discerning and preserving Truth and faith. Period. By as Rome has taught otherwise, and she is your basis for assurance of Truth, thus you must contend for Rome's novel necessity.
Such a believer would use his fallible reasoning to evaluate the credibility of claimants. After submitting to Christ/Apostles, he would not then be justified in holding their teachings ever-hostage to his changing provisional opinions
Rather, as their assurance behind their assent was based upon Scriptural substantiation, they would judge further preaching in the light of the established word of God, like as RCs do in examining modern RC teaching in the light of past official teaching, and even the magisterial status of teachings can be subject to interpretation. This does translate into negation of authority nor overall rejection of Truths, unless one rejects the nature and status of Scripture, which is the most fundamental position of the Reformation, which liberal churches reject in reality.
8.
They appealed to both Scripture and their divine authority.
You repeatedly place the cart before the horse, which imagining i am doing so. However, the reality is that the written word of God is what the oral preaching appealed to, including claims of Divine authority. The apostles were of apostles of Jesus Christ, who validated His Messiahship and mission upon Scriptural substantiation from beginning to end, refuting the devil by the written word, and expounding the Scriptures to the disciples, their hearts burning in them as He did so in Lk. 24, and is what He opened their understanding to, not to tradition.
And even the manner of the credentials of the apostles in virtues and power (2Corl. 6:4-10) need a defining basis for them been seen as valid credentials. The Gentiles who have the essence of the Law written upon their heart could perceive supernatural attestation as providing warrant for faith, though this might be faith in Paul as Mercurius, but it was the God who most expressly revealed Himself in Scripture was what they called them to. (Acts 14:8-18)
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25-26)
They appealed to Scripture to support their teaching. Just as Rome does. They appealed to tradition to support their teaching. Just as Rome does. They appealed to divine authority to support their teaching. Just as Rome does. Stop playing false dichotomies.
It is you who refuses to acknowledge that appealing to divine authority to support their teaching did not make them equal to Scripture as if their office possessed a charism of perpetual magisterial infallibly — thus any evidence they invoked is guaranteed to support them, as per Rome — but they depended upon Scriptural substantiation in establishing the veracity of their very claim to Divine authority.
Nor was tradition some novel thing as kneeling before statutes in praise and adoration (indistinguishable from worship), beseeching the object it represents for heavenly aid, and thus attributing uniquely Divine power, as only God is shown being addressed in prayer to Heaven, as taught, and able to hear virtually infinite numbers of petitions. Thus their apostles appeal to Scripture, tradition and Divine authority was not that of Rome.
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:20-21)
You keep conflating natural and supernatural. Divine revelation must be taken on the authority of another. Divine revelation is infallible by definition.
That's lame. Divine revelation is infallible yet as said, even a pagan may speak some aspect of Divine revelation, but which does not translate into Rome's formulaic perpetual assured infallibility of office.
You already disallowed obedience to non-fallible ecclesiastical authority from having any warrant, while requiring assent to her and her claims of Divine revelation based upon the premise of her perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, assurance of which itself rests upon that unwarranted premise. Thus it remains according to you that the Jewish magisterium had no authority to require obedience to certain Divinely revealed Truths given via Moses and the prophets, since as sitting in the seat of Moses did not possess assured infallibility, yet it is presumed Rome does. The assurance of which is really based upon her autocratic say so.
9.
That premise itself (SS) is offered as only a provisional opinion by Protestantism's and its confessions' own standards.
You keep repeating this based upon the fallacy that a non-infallible magisterium cannot require assent to certain Divinely revealed Truths, and that perpetual infallibility of magisterial office is promised by God and essential for to do this and for ecclesiastical authority. While truth is truth whether one accepts it or not, and Scripture is Truth, yet one's profession and understanding of that is either true or false, as is that of the church, and of the individuals in assenting to its teachings. But God has made it so that what is of God is made sufficiently manifest so that seeking souls will find the Truth based upon the warrant they need, as was the case with common souls recognizing both men and writings of God without an IM, and in the beginning of the church.
The magisterium is the supreme ecclesiastical office regarding whether an interpretation warrants faith, but it's veracity itself and what it professes as being Divine revelation depends on the prior established wholly inspired assured word of God, versus resting upon the premise of perpetual infallibility of magisterial office
to be consistent with that premise, you must be able to establish those 4 doctrines by that premise.
As said, that premise does not hold that the written word was always the supreme standard, but became so as written, but which also provided for the supply and discernment of what is of God and thus for the establishment of more writings as being of God, and for the church, etc.
What is essential to discern what is of God from what is of opinion is a coherent way to do so. Rome makes claims that allow for that, although they could be wrong. Protestantism does not even make such a claim in the first place.
Meaning the RC appeals to men to look upon evidence which he cannot be sure is from God unless he implicitly submits to the IM of Rome, at which point his submission is not provisional based upon whether evidence warrants it, but is settled since Rome, which alone provides assurance, has infallibly declared she is infallible. But if one does not find the evidence warrants this submission, it is because one cannot correctly interpret the evidence apart from Rome. The STM-triad means S+T is dependent upon M as submission to M is required to assuredly know what S+T consists of and means, which means it is not subject to having to establish its veracity upon Scripture as being the inspired word of God.
Though you constantly make your “case” for Rome by attacking what you see me and Protestantism meaning, yet Scripture clearly shows souls can surely ascertain what is of God without an IM, and God provided and preserved Truth without one, and thus the church began upon Scriptural substantiation, not the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, as per Rome.
Once again we see the free admission divine revelation and faith is reduced to stark rationalism and probable conclusions. A house built on ever-shifting sands.
Rather, since the Divine authority of the NT church was established upon Scriptural substantiation versus the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of magisterial office, then the establishment (not its possession) of its claim was provisional upon the evidence warranting it, which isd continually must manifest, as did the apostles for their apostleship, versus ending up like the scribes and Pharisees. And what we see is that the NT church itself began contrary to the Roman model, and with those who establish veracity upon Scriptural substantiation being more like NT believers than the overall ever-shifting or cultic fruit of Rome, who can both build upon the sands of traditions of men as well as redefine them to reinvent herself.
10.
• "Nor does it escape the need for interpretation, as RCs can differ on which teachings are infallible, and their meanings to varying degrees."
Only one such teaching is needed to show the difference. And many can be offered.
Wrong, as even while some teachings are clear and established among RC as infallible (including that the pope is infallible) does not negate my statement. And many examples can be provided. Meanwhile, like as an evangelical contends for many commonly held truths as binding, for they are solidly established upon Scripture, but allows for varying degrees of disputation on others, likewise do RCs. Such a truth as the virgin birth is as clear in Scripture as any RC teaching decree, any denying it means facing ecclesiastical censure, but many other teachings are interpretive to varying degrees and the RC does not have an infallible interpreter for his supreme authority any more than a SS adherent has for his. But under Rome error, including her own infallibility, can be taught as assuredly infallible truth based upon the cultic premise of her perpetual magisterial veracity, not on the weight of the evidence and arguments for it.
That the veracity of the former are contingent upon the weight of evidence has worked toward these being foremost defenders of them, while the greatest heresies are seen among those who basically operate under the heretical Roman model of a specially “anointed” assured magisterial veracity. Which can lend itself toward great unity, but is cultic.
You appeal to Christ in establishing the authority of the OT. Christ had divine authority and was infallible. So looks like you already proved it to yourself.
Try to comprehend what i have said before, that both men and writings of God are what they are regardless of how men see them, but their self-declaration that they are is not the basis for the establishment of their Truth claims. Which Christ did upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thus my appeal to Christ is to the Founder of the NT church which did not establish Himself or it upon the premise of Rome. Thus looking as Scripture we see you have no Roman NT church.
"Recognized" - if that's the case why was the canon so fluid in Judaism?
If fluidity in all of Judaism was a problem how come it was never a case when the Lord and apostles appealed to Scripture so often, most likely to the tripartite Palestinian canon of the Law, the Writings (Wisdom lit) and the prophets (Lk. 24:44) — called Scripture — which those who sat in the seat of Moses seemed to have held to?
• "Do you really think Scripture began with Rome" "Do you really think Scripture began with Rome"
Scripture and its recognition came out of Tradition which you reject in kicking the ladder.
You continue to misrepresent my position despite my prolixity. The issue is not that some of Scripture was first conveyed orally, or that is establishment was through a form of tradition, both of which Scripture provides for, but that the word of God as written, which it usually was, became the supreme transcendent standard in the light of which all preaching and Truth claims were examined and established by, thus providing for more writing by added to that body, all of which is abundantly manifest.
Making S+T equal is done under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium being supreme, by which a RC can only have assurance Rome is infallible and knows what S+T are and means.
Now go find where an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
"And that teaches that without an infallible magisterium no one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, or has any way to make correct theological statements,"
Did I say that? No.
Now you forgot, or do not comprehend, or misrepresent what even you said.
For as responded to here, you said (11/26/2014 2:20 AM)
"you have absolutely no way of know true doctrine from heresy. Any appeal to the perspicuity of scripture falls flat on its face as defectible Church wouldn't even be able to tell you, with any certitude, just which of the books floating around constitute scripture or make any pronouncements on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity or anything else.
Steve, unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority outside of the Bible, you don't have any way to know what the Bible is. [3:20 PM, November 18, 2014]
So yes you did say "And that teaches that without an infallible magisterium no one cannot correctly discern what Scripture is or means, or has any way to make correct theological statements,"
For if one can cannot discern what Scripture is then it disallows a canon without an IM. And if one has no way to know true doctrine from heresy without a IM or make any pronouncements on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity or anything else, then they cannot make correct theological statements.
But Scripture reveals just the contrary.
PBJ, there are indeed SOME things in the writings of Paul that are hard to understand and that silly people read unto their own destruction according to Peter.
Eventually, a dispute will arise as to how to interpret some things in the Bible. Then we must turn to an extra-biblical authority.
Guy, there are indeed MANY things in the writings of Rome that are interpretive - from what all is infallible and is not and aspects of their meanings and import, to what the the pope just said, and often are hard to understand, esp in the light of other RC teaching.
And that what one side says silly people read unto their own anathematized or "poorly catechized" state, while both wrest Scripture to their own damnation, as Peter Peter warned.
• "and that supremacy necessarily translates into infallibility."
Absolutely!
Absolutely in-credible and in-sane. The ramifications of which absurdity i have already shown, yet having effectively nuked the NT the faithful RC simply doubles down on his ludicrous assertion.
•
"It remains that once the Law was written, Scripture became the supreme infallible standard to which further truth claims were tested by. And in the light of which further complimentary writings were recognized and established as being of God, as were men, all without an infallible magisterium."
When did this happen?
When? Why should anyone even both responding to you, seeing you are either blinded to the obvious or an insolent sophist.
When you find the infallible magisterium under which the authoritative OT texts where established, and which the people of God were enjoined to heed and which the Lord and NT church invoked in validating their claims, then and only then would you be fit for more holy things.
All scripture must be submitted to the authority of John Calvin, no? ( Or whoever is head of your denomination. )
More absurdity. Valid pastors are ordained under Scripture being supreme, and by warrant of which the veracity of their preaching is established, not the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office as per Rome.
Which, as with your polemics here, invalidate Rome as being the NT church.
RCs do not deny interpretation - humans are not robots. But that does not mean we remain in the same stance before and after submission. It is analogous to the NT believer submitting to Christ/Apostles authority and fallibly interpreting their teachings vs submitting to some random Jewish teacher offering his self-admitted provisional opinions. The former allows for a change pre and post submission, the latter does not....
Is it really so difficult to see that a revealed religion demands, from its very nature, a place for private judgment and a place for authority?
I did not exclude private judgment or and a place for authority, but pointed out that the certainty RCs souls can hold to certain teachings while also variously interpreting their sometimes IM corresponds to the certainty SS type souls can hold to certain teachings while also variously interpreting their wholly inspired supreme standard.
A place for private judgment, in determining that the revelation itself comes from God, in discovering the Medium through which that revelation comes to
us, and the rule of faith by which we are enabled to determine what is, and what is not, revealed.
A place for authority to step in, when these preliminary investigations are over, and say "Now, be careful, for you are out of your depth here.
I also do not dispute the need of magisterial authority as seen Scripture, as in resolving disputes btwn parties and issuing formal administrative statements as seen in Acts 15. This was always a function of the magisterium to which submission was enjoined, though it did not possess assured infallibility.
But in seeking to support magisterial authority as possessing a unique anointing as an instrument of Divine revelation, RC both reject that outside of said magisterium can have certainly of who and what is of God apart from the IM. Thus the appeal to Scripture as merely a accurate historical document in order to submit to the IM and know of a truth that it is an IM.
-these and a hundred
other questions are questions which your human reason cannot investigate for itself, and upon which it can pronounce no sentence, since it moves in the natural not in the supernatural order. At this point, then, you must begin to believe by hearsay; from this point onwards you must ask, not to be convinced, but to be taught.""
That is your unScriptural problem, that veracity rests upon the premise of assured perpetual magisterial infallibility (APMI), so that those outside the unique magisterial anointing - which kicks in whenever they or their ecclesiastical descendents speak universally on F+M - only move in the natural not in the supernatural order, or only to a lesser degree than those in the IM. And which it is held must be infallible as the stewards of Divine revelation. But which is contrary to Scripture and how God preserved Truth and how the church began.
Instead, in Scripture the magisterium did indeed act authoritatively to adjudicate matters, but never never with veracity being based upon the premise of APMI. While the New Covenant offers many better things, which Hebrews describes, APMI is absent from it.
But God did raise up manifest men of God which could reprove the magisterium, and which common people discerned, and which is how the church began, with men establishing Divine authority upon Scriptural attestation, and continually so.
And under which the NT church saw its limited degree of unity, not with a bunch of men with ostentatious clothing called hiereus=priests kneeling before statues and praying to created beings in Heaven as to gods, and with their primary function being dispensing human flesh and blood by which souls obtained spiritual life by consuming it, around which feast all else revolved, etc.
You continue to reduce things of faith to rationalism and probable provisional arguments/conclusions - "strongest case" and the like rather than basing them on divine authority.
Wrong, as instead the role of the magisterium in Scripture is indeed akin to the supreme civil court, authoritative, acting to settle matters and issuing rulings, with prescribed penalties, but not with veracity based upon the idea of a special power that prevents error, and makes it effectively superior to the Constitution it interprets.
Here again we see the odd appeal to SS being the rule of faith in the apostolic era. You have danced around saying you only mean the OT was materially sufficient. The problem is SS does not posit mere material sufficiency, but formal sufficiency.
It never said the SS only posits mere material sufficiency, nor that the OT only provided that, but that its material sufficiency provides for the NT, and thus SS in its full sense. And that formal sufficiency (as I understand it) is even limited in the NT, but is seen in such writings as the ten commandments.
A soul can read and believe Scripture such as Acts 10:36-43 and become born again and read more to grow and grace, but even in reading he is dependent upon others, and which the Scriptures reveal and sanction.
So appealing to OT material sufficiency does no work for you, let alone establish it as the "supreme transcendent standard" in apostolic times.
Wrong, as the word of God is always the supreme authority, and the the written word of God is the transcendent wholly inspired and assured word of God which judges all other claimants.
A man of God was/is established as really being so upon Divine attestation, like as faith is established as being real by is effects, but not all a man or group thereof is wholly of God, but all of Scripture is.
Nor is it ever promised or shown that the veracity of a man or group will pass onto his or their successors. They may speak an oracle as Caiaphas spontaneously did, but which does not translate into assurance they will whenever the speak according to a certain scope and subject-based criteria.
Steve said,
Moreover, if a denomination is so latitudinarian that it tolerates liberals and conservatives alike–with liberals in the dominant position, no less–then that's a theologically compromised denomination. To have a few token conservatives is hardly exculpatory.
Quote of the day. Then you have the judgment of the church (which we are supposed to look to versus engaging in conflicting interpretations) not only placing these liberals in high places and or their work (the decades of RC NAB commentary being a prime), but electing a social gospel ecumenist anti-fracking pope.
Which has sent the unofficial extraordinary Internet magisterium into overdrive interpreting this active interpreter. To which the flock looks to so much due to years of exalting his claimed office above that which is written.
But its better than having to obey the pope in exterminating the heretics from the land as in the past.
it's sufficient for me to show that Protestant beliefs are not "mere opinion" as a matter of principle.
They need not be any more mere opinion than the judgment of the widow of Zarephath was in saying to Elijah, "Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." (1 Kings 17:24)
Or Philip inn saying to Nathanael,"We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45)
Or the disciples to the Lord, "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (John 6:69)
God convicts, draws, opens hearts, grants repentant faith, (J. 6:44; 12;32; 16:9; Acts 11:18; 16:14) but instrumentally provided warrant for the faith expressed here.
Since it is God who revealed this unto them, and "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost," (1Co. 12:3) then these confessions of Truth can hardly be said be mere opinions, any more than the confession of Peter was that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt. 16:17) was, and which every convert professes.
These converts do not claim that their words are inspired by God like all those of Scripture are, but neither does Rome claim that for her professed "infallible" statements of her truth claims.
And even being a prophet or an inspired writer did not mean that everything they said or wrote would be inspired of God.
The issue then is assured infallibility, and while God can even spontaneously speak thru donkeys or anti-Christ men, the fact is that nowhere did God promise perpetual assured magisterial infallibility, so that whenever the magisterium spoke universally on faith or morals then it would be protected from error.
Nor is this how God provided and preserved Truth. Instead He sometimes raised up prophets, wise men and scribes to reprove the magisterium if needed.
And thus the church began upon dissenters, upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, (Ephesians 2:20) not upon those who sat in the seat of Moses.
But as they rejected both John the baptizer and the Lord Christ, demanding "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?," (Mark 11:28) since it did not come from them, and thus their claim to Divine authority - established upon Scriptural attestation - could not be valid;
so likewise Rome presumes assured veracity of office above that which is written with God as its Author, as it is only has authority as Scripture on her say so, and only her understanding of it is assuredly correct based upon the premise of her assured veracity of office.
A foreign church it is, though it has members in the only church that is 100% made up of true believers, that being the body of Christ. Which overcomes by faith in the Son of God which Peter truly professed, as do all true disciples.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:5)
May all believe and overcome always to the end.
How do you established your supposed alternative in the first place? You rely on historical evidence. Alleged evidence for Petrine primacy, Roman primacy, papal primacy, papal infallibility, &c.
It would seem the RC belief in the Divine authority of Rome and the veracity of its teachings is as provisional as a Prots could be in Scripture and the veracity of its teachings.
The decision to submit to Rome as having Divine authority was a step of faith based upon, we assume, some degree of evidential warrant, even if he trusted his own feelings.
His confidence in RC teaching after that is presumes that his original assessment was correct, which he is assured is true because the IM tell him it is. Thus in articles of faith are indeed articles of faith to which dissent is excluded.
Yet in real life many of her most devout RCs see modern Rome compromising, or being so ambiguous so as to effectively compromise and allow the same.
Of course, under the Roman model the belief of every one was provisional, since lacking an perpetual IM then it allowed for corrective dissent, which the church is a result of.
But rather than continuing confidence in the Divine authority of its teachers and their teachings being based upon manifest Scriptural warrant, which Paul and company appealed to for both, (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12; Acts 10:43; 15:13-21; 17:2; 28:23) it is supposed that under the new and better covenant a special charism of assured formulaic magisterial infallibility is possessed and passed down via historical descent.
Yet which was left out of the description of said new and better covenant and its manifestation.
But this conclusion is typically rejected under the premise that one needs to submit to the IM in order to correctly understand Scripture in this or any other conflict.
Sorry about the mix up i deleted, as this was what i meant to respond to.
Steve said,
Look at how two popes go about prooftexting Marian dogma. After going through the motions, this is how it ends:
"by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Thus assurance is based upon the premise of assured perpetual magisterial infallibility, as even the arguments and reasoning that are employed for support of infallible statements are not covered under the claimed charism for the Catholic mag.
The Scribes and Pharisees simply needed to further develop their claims as Rome did. Think of what they could have argued after the logic of Roman reasoning!
"Your own leader affirmed we sit in the seat of Moses over Israel, the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and recipients of promises of God's presence and preservation as a people.
For one of your own, a traitor unto us, has affirmed "for unto them were committed the oracles of God," "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh" (Romans 9:4) the one you call Christ came.
But whom we rejected as he dared reprove us from Scripture, but had no authority from the seat of Moses, nor did that hairy man in the desert whose authority he invoked when challenged as to his own.
Certainly multitudes ran after your messiah, but will ye also be deceived? "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (John 7:47-49)
But we who sit in the seat of Moses cannot be wrong in such a matter as who the Messiah is. And without an infallible magisterium every man will only do what it right in his own eyes. (Dt. 12:8)
Even though the written Law was given so that man would not do just that, if it is allowed that the magisterium can be wrong, and dissent allowed, then belief is ever-provisional and our office has no claim to warrant obedience;
Especially against following these itinerant preachers the whole world is running after, deceived by the many texts of the Law and the prophets and miracles they purport supports their claim to Divine authority.
-------------------------------------------------------
Or so they could have blasphemously vainly argued if they had studied under Rome.
Moreover, RC "apostolic successors" manifestly fail of the qualifications and credentials which validated their claim to be apostles, while the only commanded continuous ordination is that of presbuteros (not hiereus), with qualifications a SS pastor can meet for an office of Divine authority.
So with 517 Comments thus far did we break any records? Thank God for His truthad means of expressing it.
Peaceby Jesus -
sometime ago, after 230 + (?), I think the record here was broken. (as far as I know) I commented on that then.
Thanks for your interaction; I have not been able to keep up with all that.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
Imagine that you see an Angel approach Jones and say, "Hail Jones, God has told me to bring you a message. God says that you are the most blessed of men and He is always with you."
Now, will you fly to Jones' patronage? I sure would. Scripture says:
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
And we see, in Job, where God hears certain people whom He considers righteous:
Job 42:7-10King James Version (KJV)
7 And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. 8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job. 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the Lord commanded them: the Lord also accepted Job. 10 And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.
Not only that, but Scripture tells us that all who love God and hold the Gospel of Jesus Christ are seeds of the Woman. That Woman, gentlemen, is the woman who gave birth to the Messiah. That Woman, is Mary:
Revelation 12:17King James Version (KJV)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Who, except the most rebellious, wouldn't run to the patronage of She whom God the Father has assigned as their spiritual Mother?
De Maria said... God says that you are the most blessed of men and He is always with you."
And just where does Scripture state that Mary uniquely was the most blessed among/above women and as having God with her?
Now, will you fly to Jones' patronage? I sure would. Scripture says:
Well that is fitting, since Mormonic teaching also supports a Heavenly mother. But even that cult does not pray to her, ascribing a uniquely Divine attribute to her or any created being the power to hear virtually infinite prayers addressed to them in Heaven, which only God is shown possessing.
Angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial does not do it.
And we see, in Job, where God hears certain people whom He considers righteous:
Certainly it is right to seek Godly believers to pray for us, but the same Scripture that teaches this by doctrine and example nowhere teaches or examples (out of over 200 prayers in Scripture e) by anyone except pagans making supplication or making offerings addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.
Do you really think the Holy Spirit would be negligent or that God would see no warrant in providing even one prayer by a believer addressed to someone else in glory but the Lord for what is a common practice for Caths?
But who instead supplies over 200 to God, and specifically teaches that believers are to pray after this manner, "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name," and who sets forth only one heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, that being the Lord Jesus? (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
Who alone "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16) Who ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (Hebrews 10:19)
The fact that believers prayed to the Lord Jesus (1Co. 1.2) is a testimony to His deity.
Basing doctrine on arguments from silence places you with Mormons, as does a specious correspondence btwn relations on earthly and btwn heaven and earth by created beings.
Hearing mental prayers is what only God is shown able to do, while communication btwn created beings from Heaven and those on earth required both parties to be on the same realm.
Thus prayer to departed saints or angels in Heaven is invisible in Scripture and contrary to what it does teach. However, Rome basically is herself.
Revelation 12:17King James Version (KJV)
And just where is this official indisputable RC teaching, and enjoys the unanimous consent of the "fathers?" The notes in your own NAB Bible state,
The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12.
Who, except the most rebellious, wouldn't run to the patronage of She whom God the Father has assigned as their spiritual Mother?
Who except those with cultic devotion would contrive rebellion as being only thinking of mortals consistent with what is written, (cf. 1Co. 4:6) while turning the Mary of Scripture into an almost almighty demigoddess?
Go even find one example of anyone bowing down/ kneeling before a statue and praising the created entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
http://www.peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/moses.gif
PeaceByJesus said...And just where does Scripture state that Mary uniquely was the most blessed among/above women and as having God with her?
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Well that is fitting, since Mormonic teaching also supports a Heavenly mother. ...
I'm not a mormon.
Divine attribute to her or any created being the power to hear virtually infinite prayers addressed to them in Heaven, which only God is shown possessing. Angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial does not do it.
Then, how did they receive those prayers and to what purpose?
Your simple rejection makes no sense here. You need to be able to explain why you deny what is plain in the Scripture. Elders and angels received the prayers of the faithful and brought them before God. That is a powerful illustration of mediation between God and man.
nowhere teaches or examples (out of over 200 prayers in Scripture e) by anyone except pagans making supplication or making offerings addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.
But Scripture tells us that those who are faithful to Christ, live although they die. And Scripture tells us that when we come to the Church, we walk amongst the spirits of men who are made perfect.
John 11:26
and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Hebrews 12:22 but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Because we believe these things in Scripture, we, Catholics, turn to our brothers and sisters who have proved their righteousnes and have been made perfect in Christ and ask for their intercession:
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Do you really think the Holy Spirit would be negligent or that God would see no warrant in providing even one prayer by a believer addressed to someone else in glory but the Lord for what is a common practice for Caths?
That's because you don't believe that your brethren are in glory. If you did, you would admit that they are alive in Christ. Not only that, but we believe that those who are members of Christ's body are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, ready and waiting to give us a helping hand.
Besides, we read the Scriptures differently.
For instance, Scripture says.
Luke 1:28 (DRA)
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Catholics will recognize that as the beginning of the Hail Mary.
Luke 1:42 (DRA)
42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Catholics will recognize that as the end of that prayer.
When you read those Scriptures, you say to yourself, perhaps, "how nice."
When we read those Scriptures, we see that God praised Mary through His Angel and the Holy Spirit praised Mary through a Saint. These are God's words. This is God's message. And He commanded that an Angel and a Saint pass this message to Mary. So, we read that message as a command that we should imitate GOD and praise Mary throughout all generations. And, in fact, Scripture gives us this precise instruction.
Luke 1:48 (AKJV)
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:
for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
contd with pbj,
But who instead supplies over 200 to God, and specifically teaches that believers are to pray after this manner, "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name,"
We do that as well. Probably more than you, because we believe in repeating prayers.
and who sets forth only one heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, that being the Lord Jesus? (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
You misunderstand what you're reading. Jesus Christ is the ONE Mediator because He is mediating by nature. He is God AND man.
But we are commanded to mediate between Christ and our fellow man. Read the very same excerpt you provided but with more context:
1 Timothy 2 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
Friend, that's mediation. And St. Paul is commanding it for all of us to perform.
2 for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
And he says that it is God's will for us to do.
cont'd
cont'd with pbj,
4 who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Now, understand this, because Jesus Christ is mediator, ST. PAUL is mediating through HIM. St. Paul, ordained a priest of Christ is, through the Body of Christ, mediating to the Church.
Yea, you guys understand neither the Scripture nor the power of God.
2 Corinthians 5:18-20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
When the Church preaches, it is God beseeching you through the Church. When the priests of the Catholic Church pray for you, it is Christ praying through them for you.
This is Catholic Teaching 101 and its in Scripture.
Who alone "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)
That's actually a reference to the Sacraments, wherein we present ourselves with the disposition of faith and believing are counted as righteous and counted righteous, the saving grace of the Holy Spirit is poured into our hearts and washes away our sin as we call upon His name.
Who ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
That is Catholic Doctrine. How about this one:
Hebrews 13:17Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
That says that the priest gives an account of your soul? That, is intercession. And he can do so because this is an obvious reference to the Sacrament of reconciliation. This is where we recount our sins to the Priest, who preaches to us in God's stead and prays for us in Christ's stead.
cont'd
cont'd with pbj
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (Hebrews 10:19)
That's a reference to the Holy Eucharist. Read the rest of that.
Hebrews 10:19-31Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
We receive the body and blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
20 by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
This is a Sacrament, established by Christ, that we may share in His Divine Life, through His flesh.
21 and having an high priest over the house of God; 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
And since we believe in God and have been baptized and had our sins washed away, we may approach the Altar with confidence
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
This is a reference to our Public Profession of Faith in the Holy Mass.
24 and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
This is the preaching of the Priest at every Mass and the mission to we are sent from every Mass.
25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,
This is the Mass, which we are not to miss with impunity.
as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
When we receive the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, we receive the knowledge of the Truth. But if we continue to sin, after receiving His Grace, in the Holy Eucharist, then we have received His Grace in vain and there is no other sacrifice for sins. It is the only one and if we neglect, there is recourse to no other.
Now, pay attention:
27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
If you miss the Mass and neglect the Holy Eucharist, you will be punished by God.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
consider that the shadows of the Mosaic law could not be neglected without punishment of death
29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
What then, do you expect to happen, if you neglect the Holy Eucharist? If you miss the Mass and neglect the Holy Eucharist, it is like stepping under your boots, the Body of our Lord which died for you! And like blaspheming the blood which Christ poured out for you!
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Yeah, Catholicism 101, it is a mortal sin to miss the Mass.
cont'd with pbj,
The fact that believers prayed to the Lord Jesus (1Co. 1.2) is a testimony to His deity.
The fact that we can pray to those who died in Christ is also a testimony to His deity.
Basing doctrine on arguments from silence places you with Mormons, as does a specious correspondence btwn relations on earthly and btwn heaven and earth by created beings.
It is not we who base our arguments on silence, but you. You claim to deny that which is not in Scripture. But neither Scripture alone nor faith are in Scripture and you accept those doctrines from satan.
Hearing mental prayers is what only God is shown able to do, while communication btwn created beings from Heaven and those on earth required both parties to be on the same realm.
Thus prayer to departed saints or angels in Heaven is invisible in Scripture and contrary to what it does teach. However, Rome basically is herself.
On the contrary, Scripture teaches us that our brethren who died in Christ are still alive. And if they are alive in Christ, they are still mediating for us, in Christ.
In case that was too long a response, I've posted the whole thing, here.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Revelation 12:17King James Version (KJV)
And just where is this official indisputable RC teaching, and enjoys the unanimous consent of the "fathers?"
Where is the teaching that disputes it which enjoys the unanimous consent of the "fathers"?
You see, what Protestants don't understand is that Scripture talks to us on many levels. As long as they don't contradict Catholic Tradition, they are acceptable.
The notes in your own NAB Bible state,
The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12.
Do you see a denial there, that this is also Mary? Pope JPII proclaims Mary Mother of the Church and that can only be a reference to this verse. And when he does so, he provides many proofs from the Early Church:
According to St Irenaeus, Mary "became a cause of salvation for the whole human race" (Haer. 3, 22, 4; PG 7, 959), and the pure womb of the Virgin "regenerates men in God" (Haer. 4, 33, 11; PG 7, 1080). This is re-echoed by St Ambrose, who says: "A Virgin has begotten the salvation of the world, a Virgin has given life to all things" (Ep. 63, 33; PL 16, 1198), and by other Fathers who call Mary "Mother of salvation" (Severian of Gabala, Or. 6 in mundi creationem, 10, PG 54, 4; Faustus of Riez, Max. Bibl. Patrum, VI. 620-621).
In the Middle Ages, St Anselm addressed Mary in this way: "You are the mother of justification and of the justified, the Mother of reconciliation and of the reconciled, the mother of salvation and of the saved" (Or. 52, 8; PL 158, 957), while other authors attribute to her the titles "Mother of grace" and "Mother of life".
Who except those with cultic devotion would contrive rebellion as being only thinking of mortals consistent with what is written, (cf. 1Co. 4:6) while turning the Mary of Scripture into an almost almighty demigoddess?
On the contrary, it is we who stay within the letter. It is we who do our best to imitate Christ. It is Christ who first ran to Mary and chose her to be His Mother. And we, the Baptized are born again in the Body of Christ and therefore, she is our mother by virtue of being the Mother of Jesus Christ. Have you not read in Scripture?
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Or is that, yet another verse of Scripture which you don't believe?
cont'd
cont'd with pbj,
Go even find one example of anyone bowing down/ kneeling before a statue and praising the created entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
Moses is OT. We are in a New Dispensation where we walk with the Saints. Have you not heard the Good News?!
Hebrews 12:18-24Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (for they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22 but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
De Maria: I responded here to your blog version, and mostly in that order.
Pt. 1.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
So you added to Scripture by making "among women" to mean uniquely most blessed above women, which was the issue. She actually was so blessed, not due to manifest supreme virtue but due to being the vessel God chose to incarnate Himself thru, yet i wanted to see where your text was that stated this.
For actually, this statement was not unique, for as said of another salvific instrument, "Blessed above [or among] women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent." (Judges 5:24)
I'm not a mormon, stick to the topic.
That was not a diversion, as it is indeed true that Mormonic teaching also supports a Heavenly mother and that the LDS also operates out of the sola ecclesia and assured veracity premise as does Rome, by which they both justify fables as being binding doctrine.
Angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial does not do it.
Then, how did they receive those prayers and to what purpose?
Search the Scriptures (Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15). Incense represents prayers addressed to God and were offered as a memorial: "of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Leviticus 2:2)
Bringing these memorial offerings is one things, making them the object of the offering is another, which is your burden to prove, but which you will never find anywhere in Scripture.
Elders and angels received the prayers of the faithful and brought them before God.
Typical eisegesis. This simply does not translate into elders and angels being addressed in prayer, which is nowhere supported.
Please find at least one literal prayer addressed to angels asking them to intercede. The Israelites certainly had need of them, but only addressed God in prayer.
But Scripture tells us that those who are faithful to Christ, live although they die.
More egregious extrapolation. That to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord is only affirmed, but which simply does not translate into praying to created being in Heaven, nor that they can actually hear all these sppsd multitudinous prayers to them themselves. Since the only ones the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture are to the Lord, who will have a long time trying to find any others.
That's because you don't believe that your brethren are in glory.
Ditto, and desperate.
Besides, we read the Scriptures differently.
Differently indeed, meaning making Scripture teach something which is nowhere found.
Luke 1:28 Catholics will recognize that as the beginning of the Hail Mary...Luke 1:42 ..Catholics will recognize that as the end of that prayer.
Which only evidences that what Catholics will recognize does not correspond to reality. You present this as an example of praying to created beings in Heaven, yet this is simply an address by created beings to one on earth! Typical desperate specious extrapolation
When we read those Scriptures, we see that God praised Mary through His Angel and the Holy Spirit praised Mary through a Saint.
But which was not unique, as all believers are said to be graced as Mary was (there simply is not "full" in the old DRB "full of grace," which your approved NAB corrects).
Pt. 2.
These are God's words. This is God's message. And He commanded that an Angel and a Saint pass this message to Mary.
Yet it remains this is not a prayer to someone in Heaven, much less multitudes bowing down and beseeching such for Divine aid, which believers are never shown doing even on earth, for "all ye are brethren."
Moreover, praise by an angel of the blessed state of a person is not unique to Mary, for as said of Daniel, "O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee.. (Daniel 10:11)
So, we read that message as a command that we should imitate GOD and praise Mary
Regardless of how you want to read things into Scripture which the Holy Spirit did not provide, there simply is not a prayer to Mary in Heaven, any more than any communication on earth is,
Moreover, rather than a command to engage in Catholic "hyperdualia" and making Mary an almost almighty demigoddess whose exaltation much parallels Christ, the manner in which we praise Mary is according to Scripture, "not to think of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) which Caths manifestly do with the Mary of Catholicism.
believers are to pray after this manner, "Our Father which art in heaven,
We do that as well. Probably more than you, because we believe in repeating prayers.
But besides wrongly presuming they all have God as their Father, the manner of prayer that Christ taught was consistent with Scripture, not the novel "our Mother, who art in Heaven." Likewise the Spirit in true believers cries "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6) not "Mama, Mother," despite the words Catholics stick into God's mouth.
You misunderstand what you're reading. Jesus Christ is the ONE Mediator because He is mediating by nature. He is God AND man.
Rather, He alone is set forth as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, because He is God AND man. Stop adding to Scripture.
But we are commanded to mediate between Christ and our fellow man.
Indeed, but despite your attempts to compel Scripture to support your vain traditions, absolutely nowhere does God teach that this means praying to a special class of departed saints who alone are in Heaven, who like God can hear even infinite amounts of mental prayers addressed to them. Period.
And St. Paul is commanding it for all of us to perform.
Again, stop adding to Scripture! Why can't you show us where this meant praying to the departed? Because no command or example exists in all of Scripture, that's why! Paul himself exampled Biblical prayer:
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father [not mother] of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 3:14)
And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (Acts 22:19)
Why does Paul or anyone else not example what you say he commanded, so that you must add to his word? Because Scripture is reduced to being your servant which is compelled to serve Rome and RCs, wresting scripture "unto their own destruction." You have been warned.
Yea, you guys understand neither the Scripture nor the power of God.
Meaning as with cults, that since you cannot produce any actual examples or teaching that men prayed to created beings in Scripture, then the problem is the lack of a Roman mind meld. From such flee away.
When the priests of the Catholic Church pray for you, it is Christ praying through them for you.
Besides the fact that there also is no NT pastors titled “hiereus”=priests as there is no distinctive sacerdotal class of believers, ministers praying for others is nowhere that of praying to created beings in glory, which only are addressed to God.
Pt. 3.
(Hebrews 4:15-16)
That's actually a reference to the Sacraments, wherein we present ourselves with the disposition of faith and believing are counted as righteous and counted righteous,
Which is a diversion, as besides this actually meaning that one is formally justified on the basis of one's own holiness, the point was that believers come directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries.
How about this one:
Hebrews 13:17...That, is intercession
That is more vain extrapolation, as teaching on intercession nowhere teaches praying to and beseeching created beings in Heaven for help, any more than it teaches praying to fire and hail.
(Hebrews 10:19)
That's a reference to the Holy Eucharist.
More creative eisegesis and which also does not support PTDS .
We receive the body and blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
This thread is long enough without refuting this lengthy propagandic diversion, while Heb. 10:19 shows believers have direct entrance into the holiest by the blood of Christ, as abundantly shown by the examples of prayers directly to the Lord.
The fact that we can pray to those who died in Christ is also a testimony to His deity.
Which presumes Christ commanded or exampled or sanctioned this, which He nowhere did, despite Cath. extrapolation. Again, go find one. Why would the Holy Spirit leave what out what is sppsd to be a common practice of the church?
It is not we who base our arguments on silence, but you. You claim to deny that which is not in Scripture. But neither Scripture alone nor faith are in Scripture and you accept those doctrines from satan.
Mere bombast. You do indeed base your arguments on silence from Scripture and "a specious correspondence btwn relations on earthly and btwn heaven and earth by created beings," which you left out of my statement.
And Scripture alone is the supreme wholly inspired and infallible standard for obedience and testing Truth claims as the assured word of God, as is abundantly evidenced.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
And it is faith alone which appropriates justification, (Rm. 4:5; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) but as Westminster and reformers taught , only the kind of faith that effects obedience is salvific.
In contrast, presuming assured perpetual magisterial veracity, out of which fables such a bodily resurrected heavenly demigoddess can be made binding doctrine, is what of the devil, as such a magisterium is not of Scripture.
On the contrary, Scripture teaches us that our brethren who died in Christ are still alive.
On the contrary, I never denied our (not necessarily yours) brethren who died in Christ are alive, not even that they could pray to God.
And if they are alive in Christ, they are still mediating for us, in Christ.
Which conclusion does not follow the premise, as this does not translate into hearing virtually infinite numbers of mental prayers addressed to them, which is the issue despite your editing.
You see, what Protestants don't understand is that Scripture talks to us on many levels.
Oh be assured i do see. Scripture speaks what a RC desires it to say in order to support their ecclesiastical god.
Pt. 4
The notes in your own NAB Bible state,
The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament.
Do you see a denial there, that this is also Mary?
An example of how RCs interpret their own teaching. You take RC notes which teach the women represents God’s people and refuse to see that as denying that this women is distinctively Mary, which was the point.
Pope JPII proclaims Mary Mother of the Church and that can only be a reference to this verse. And when he does so, he provides many proofs from the Early Church:
So besides your interpreting the pope to mean he is referring to Revelation 12:17, this makes it "official indisputable teaching RC teaching, and enjoys the unanimous consent of the 'fathers?," which was the question despite your failure to provide that?
Just admit the answer is no.
On the contrary, it is we who stay within the letter. It is we who do our best to imitate Christ. It is Christ who first ran to Mary..
Please! That is blasphemous. Christ as God created Mary, thru whom He would be incarnated, and who owes to God her very breath! And who did not run to her when she called him, but equated all who obeyed God as she beautifully exampled as being His mother, and brethren. (Mt. 12:47-50)
Out of which Catholics can only damnably extrapolate
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
And more .
pt. 5.
Have you not read in Scripture?
Galatians 2:20
Which simply does not support such hyperdulia and praying to a Queen of Heaven, which only pagans are shown doing, which Paul, who never even mentions Mary by name, and only once states that Christ was born of a women, did not once example.
Stop reading into Scripture what is not there, and admit this is a tradition of men!
Go even find one example of anyone bowing down/ kneeling before a statue and praising the created entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
Moses is OT. We are in a New Dispensation where we walk with the Saints. Have you not heard the Good News?!
Insolence. Have you not heard that idolatry is also sin in the NT? In addition, while sometimes men bowed before others, this is never the case with believers in the NT, not men reigning as kings, as Peter himself showed, (Acts 10:25,26) let alone praying to them as if they were gods in Heaven.
Moreover, while Hebrews details how the new covenant is better, it only teaches prayer directly to the Lord, and the unique intercessory role of the Lord Christ, and never to angels or departed saints.
You are under condemnation for reading into Scripture what is manifestly not there, and making it your servant to support Rome, which does the same.
In a word, Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (Acts 3:19).
Hi PeacebyJesus,
Thanks for responding.
PeaceByJesus said...
De Maria: I responded here to your blog version, and mostly in that order.
Pt. 1.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
According to the Biblehubwhich is a Protestant Scripture website, the KJV, the Darby, the Webster and the World English say, blessed art thou among women.
So you added to Scripture by making "among women" to mean uniquely most blessed above women, which was the issue.
She actually was so blessed, not due to manifest supreme virtue but due to being the vessel God chose to incarnate Himself thru, yet i wanted to see where your text was that stated this.
For actually, this statement was not unique, for as said of another salvific instrument, "Blessed above [or among] women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent." (Judges 5:24)
Jael is called blessed among women because she killed a man in his sleep and thus rescued the Israelites. Mary is called blessed amongst women, twice, because she will soon conceive the Son of God (Luke 1:28) and because she had conceived the Son of God (Luke 1:42).
But you're equating the killing of a man in his sleep, with giving birth to the incarnate Son of God?
Because the way I read it, Mary is more blessed than any other woman that ever walked the earth because she will soon conceive the Son of God. In fact, after conceiving the Son of God, St. Elizabeth tells her the very same thing.
Luke 1:42
and she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
But, tell me. What woman has received a greater blessing than being the Mother of Jesus Christ? I'd really like to know.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Peace by Jesus said,
That was not a diversion, as it is indeed true that Mormonic teaching also supports a Heavenly mother and that the LDS also operates out of the sola ecclesia and assured veracity premise as does Rome, by which they both justify fables as being binding doctrine.
Seems like a diversion to me. The Catholic Church has been around 2000 years. Mormons were invented about the same time as your religion.
Search the Scriptures (Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15). Incense represents prayers addressed to God and were offered as a memorial: "of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Leviticus 2:2)
Good answer. Lets keep on the topic. Incense represents prayers addressed to God. But the angels and elders received them first. Therefore, they are serving as mediators between God and man.
Bringing these memorial offerings is one things, making them the object of the offering is another, which is your burden to prove, but which you will never find anywhere in Scripture.
Where is it written that I must find it in Scripture?
Here's what you fail to understand. The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholic Doctrine is in Scripture explicit or implied. I can find many times in Scripture where it is implied that we, in the New Dispensation of Jesus Christ, may address the Saints directly.
But you, claim that you must have explicit support for all Doctrines in Scripture. Yet, you can't provide explicit support for the most basic of Protestant doctrines, such as Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura.
Typical eisegesis. This simply does not translate into elders and angels being addressed in prayer, which is nowhere supported.
One thing that you must recognize. We don't read Scripture the same way.
1st of all, we recognize that Jesus did not write Scripture. Not one word. Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Doctrines.
2nd, the Church wrote the New Testament on the basis of those Doctrines.
3rd, one of those Doctrines was communion of Saints which Jesus illustrated by:
a. Teaching that all the saints are alive in Christ (John 11:25).
b. Teaching that Abraham was awake and aware of life on earth (Luke 16:29). And that he felt he had enough authority to outright deny another soul's prayer.
c. Teaching that one may offer sacrifices in the name of saints, prophets and disciples (Matt 10:41-42).
d. Himself giving the first example of the communion of Saints by talking to Moses and Elijah on the Mountain (Mark 9:4).
Scripture further emphasizes that we are in a New Dispensation where we are at home with the Saints by illustrating that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1). And emphasizing that we, who are baptized, are walking side by side with them on the Mountain, just as Jesus was on Mt. Tabor (Heb 12:21-24).
cont'd
cont'd Pt. 1 with Peace by Jesus said
Please find at least one literal prayer addressed to angels asking them to intercede. The Israelites certainly had need of them, but only addressed God in prayer.
I'm not bound by the Old Testament. I don't live in the shadow. I live in the good things which have been brought about by Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
More egregious extrapolation. That to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord is only affirmed, but which simply does not translate into praying to created being in Heaven, nor that they can actually hear all these sppsd multitudinous prayers to them themselves. Since the only ones the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture are to the Lord, who will have a long time trying to find any others.
What does that even mean? Are you denying that those who die in Christ are alive in Christ? And if they are interceding for us when they are alive on this earth, what is going to stop them from interceding for us when they are alive in Christ?
Differently indeed, meaning making Scripture teach something which is nowhere found.
Meaning, recognizing that the New Testament didn't fall out of the sky but was written based upon an existing Teaching which was given the Apostles by Jesus Christ.
Which only evidences that what Catholics will recognize does not correspond to reality. You present this as an example of praying to created beings in Heaven, yet this is simply an address by created beings to one on earth! Typical desperate specious extrapolation
This is an example of communion of saints. Created beings from heaven and earth speaking to one another.
But which was not unique, as all believers are said to be graced as Mary was (there simply is not "full" in the old DRB "full of grace," which your approved NAB corrects).
Sounds as though you really don't believe that conceiving the Son of God in her womb was a special blessing. It sounds as though you think that there are greater blessings which God could bestow upon other women. Please name one.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 2.
Yet it remains this is not a prayer to someone in Heaven, much less multitudes bowing down and beseeching such for Divine aid, which believers are never shown doing even on earth, for "all ye are brethren."
In the New Testament, believers are already beseeching the Apostles for Divine Aid.
Acts 5:15
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Acts 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: 12 so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Since Jesus Christ taught by example that we are now free to communicate with the Saints and since we are admonished to ask for the prayer of righteous men (Mark 9:4), it follows that we are permitted to ask for the intercession of the Saints (James 5:16).
Moreover, praise by an angel of the blessed state of a person is not unique to Mary, for as said of Daniel, "O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee.. (Daniel 10:11)
What did God do for Daniel that is a blessing greater than or equal to giving His beloved Son to be conceived in her womb?
Regardless of how you want to read things into Scripture which the Holy Spirit did not provide, there simply is not a prayer to Mary in Heaven, any more than any communication on earth is,
Those words are right there, in black and white, which God addressed to Mary through His angel and His saint.
Moreover, rather than a command to engage in Catholic "hyperdualia" and making Mary an almost almighty demigoddess whose exaltation much parallels Christ, the manner in which we praise Mary is according to Scripture, "not to think of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) which Caths manifestly do with the Mary of Catholicism.
It is written that Mary is the Mother of Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. It is written that God called her blessed among women. It is written that she was crowned in heaven with 12 stars (Rev 12:1). It is written that she is the mother of all who keep the commandments and the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:17).
You want to ignore and reject those things which are written in Scripture. But I don't and won't.
pt. 2 with PBJ cont'd
But besides wrongly presuming they all have God as their Father, the manner of prayer that Christ taught was consistent with Scripture, not the novel "our Mother, who art in Heaven." Likewise the Spirit in true believers cries "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6) not "Mama, Mother," despite the words Catholics stick into God's mouth.
No idea what you're talking about there. It is Jesus Christ who appointed Mary as our mother.
John 19:26-28
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. 28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Catholics are taught to read Scripture as though God was speaking to us. Now, are you a beloved disciple of Christ? To put it differently, are you a disciple whom Jesus loves? Catholics would answer, "Yes" to that question and therefore accept Jesus command to take Mary as our mother and bring her into our home (i.e. heart).
Then, you need to be aware of other verses in Scripture.
Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The seed of the Woman is not just Jesus. Let me show you:
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Do you consider yourself someone who keeps the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus? If so, then you are seed or a child of the Woman. That Woman is Mary. And therefore, Scripture says that all who fight the good fight on behalf of God in Christ, are children of Mary.
Rather, He alone is set forth as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, because He is God AND man. Stop adding to Scripture.
On the contrary, it is you who are taking away from Scripture. Scripture is clear that the Church is here to mediate between God and man. Or what do you do with this verse?
2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
God beseeches us by the mediation of the Church.
The Church prays for us in the place of Christ.
That's mediation.
cont'd
pt 2 with PBJ cont'd
Indeed, but despite your attempts to compel Scripture to support your vain traditions, absolutely nowhere does God teach that this means praying to a special class of departed saints who alone are in Heaven, who like God can hear even infinite amounts of mental prayers addressed to them. Period.
It is shown by example and implication. We are in a New Dispensation in Christ. Those who went before us remain members of the same Body.
Again, stop adding to Scripture! Why can't you show us where this meant praying to the departed? Because no command or example exists in all of Scripture, that's why! Paul himself exampled Biblical prayer:
I have shown you. You want to put on me the same unbiblical burden which you carry. But I don't have that burden. The Church does not teach that every Doctrine is explicit in Scripture. Your religion does and can't provide any example of such for those doctrines which are in opposition to the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father [not mother] of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 3:14)
And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (Acts 22:19)
Why does Paul or anyone else not example what you say he commanded, so that you must add to his word? Because Scripture is reduced to being your servant which is compelled to serve Rome and RCs, wresting scripture "unto their own destruction." You have been warned.
On the contrary, it is you who add to and take away from Scripture. We don't need to be told explicitly to bow our knee to the Mother of God. First of all, we see one of the archangels of the Lord, who stands at the throne of God, condescending to approach Mary and praise her. 2nd, we realize that it is really God who has condescended to give this mere mortal such praise. 3rd, we realize that St. Elizabeth feels honored and humbled that Mary, the mother of her Lord would visit her, she said, "43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
That is explicit enough for us.
Meaning as with cults, that since you cannot produce any actual examples or teaching that men prayed to created beings in Scripture, then the problem is the lack of a Roman mind meld. From such flee away.
Again, it is your burden to provide explicit text. Not mine.
cont'd
pt 2 with PBJ cont'd
Besides the fact that there also is no NT pastors titled “hiereus”=priests as there is no distinctive sacerdotal class of believers, ministers praying for others is nowhere that of praying to created beings in glory, which only are addressed to God.
You don't recognize the Priesthood which is everywhere depicted in the New Testament because you don't accept the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
First, the Priesthood is here explicitly mentioned:
A. 1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
B. Here it is explicit in the original Greek, which loses something in the translation to English:
hierourgeō
1) to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service
a) of those who defend the sanctity of the law by undergoing a violent death
b) of the preaching of the gospel
Romans 15:16
King James Version (KJV)
16That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
C. Here is Jesus telling you that He has established a ministerial priesthood:
Matthew 12:
1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Have you ever wondered why the Disciples are guiltless? They ate bread on the Sabbath day and were guiltless because they were the equivalent of the Levites, the ministerial priests of the Old Testament. The Levites were in the Temple, eating and working on the Sabbath. But there is one greater than the Temple and His ministerial priests are free to eat and work on the Sabbath, because He is Lord of the Sabbath.
D. Not enough for you? Here's another:
Luke 22:25-26
King James Version (KJV)
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Have you ever heard it said that the Catholic Priests are the servants of the servants of God. That is the basis of that saying.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 3.
(Hebrews 4:15-16)
Which is a diversion, as besides this actually meaning that one is formally justified on the basis of one's own holiness, the point was that believers come directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries.
Nope, we believe we receive mercy and grace at the Sacraments.
1513 The Apostolic Constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum, following upon the Second Vatican Council, established that henceforth, in the Roman Rite, the following be observed:
The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given to those who are seriously ill by anointing them on the forehead and hands with duly blessed oil - pressed from olives or from other plants - saying, only once: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."
How about this one:
Hebrews 13:17...That, is intercession
That is more vain extrapolation, as teaching on intercession nowhere teaches praying to and beseeching created beings in Heaven for help, any more than it teaches praying to fire and hail.
Heb 13:17 teaches that the saints of God are already interceding for us here on earth. Show me where Scripture says they stop interceding in heaven.
(Hebrews 10:19)
That's a reference to the Holy Eucharist.
More creative eisegesis and which also does not support PTDS .
You brought it up. I just pointed out that it is a reference to the Eucharist.
This thread is long enough without refuting this lengthy propagandic diversion, while Heb. 10:19 shows believers have direct entrance into the holiest by the blood of Christ, as abundantly shown by the examples of prayers directly to the Lord.
You brought it up. And yet you don't believe in the Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Which presumes Christ commanded or exampled or sanctioned this, which He nowhere did, despite Cath. extrapolation. Again, go find one. Why would the Holy Spirit leave what out what is sppsd to be a common practice of the church?
No, it presumes that we are all alive in Christ, whether we are dead or alive on this earth, those who believe in Christ are alive in Christ. Do you deny this?
Mere bombast. You do indeed base your arguments on silence from Scripture and "a specious correspondence btwn relations on earthly and btwn heaven and earth by created beings," which you left out of my statement.
All your objections are being answered. They may not be to your liking, but they are according to the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
pt3 cont'd with PBJ
And Scripture alone is the supreme wholly inspired and infallible standard for obedience and testing Truth claims as the assured word of God, as is abundantly evidenced.
Show me from Scripture. Because I see Scripture telling us to obey our priests:
Hebrews 13:17Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Again, I see Scripture telling us to listen to the Church:
Matthew 18:17Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
And it is faith alone which appropriates justification, (Rm. 4:5; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) but as Westminster and reformers taught , only the kind of faith that effects obedience is salvific.
So, you're qualifying faith alone. it is not by faith alone but by faith and obedience. Very good. That is what we believe as well:
Hebrews 5:9Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
In contrast, presuming assured perpetual magisterial veracity, out of which fables such a bodily resurrected heavenly demigoddess can be made binding doctrine, is what of the devil, as such a magisterium is not of Scripture.
Scripture teaches that the Church will always teach the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Which conclusion does not follow the premise, as this does not translate into hearing virtually infinite numbers of mental prayers addressed to them, which is the issue despite your editing.
Sure it does. You simply reject it. Souls in heaven are in eternity. By definition, they are no longer constrained by time and space.
Oh be assured i do see. Scripture speaks what a RC desires it to say in order to support their ecclesiastical god.
God certainly speaks through the Catholic Church, yes.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 4
An example of how RCs interpret their own teaching. You take RC notes which teach the women represents God’s people and refuse to see that as denying that this women is distinctively Mary, which was the point.
It is an example of how Protestants take Catholic notes. The Catholic Church does not require writers to write down every interpretation of a verse of Scripture that was ever held by a Catholic. The truth is that the Catholic Church accepts the interpretations that the Woman of Rev 12 is:
1. Israel,
2. The Church,
3. and especially, the Virgin Mary.
So besides your interpreting the pope to mean he is referring to Revelation 12:17, this makes it "official indisputable teaching RC teaching, and enjoys the unanimous consent of the 'fathers?," which was the question despite your failure to provide that?
Just admit the answer is no.
The answer is that the question is irrelevant. The Catholic Church has only infallibly declared a few interpretations of Scripture. And Rev 12:17 is not one of them.
The Catholic Church does not micro manage Scripture interpretations. For the most part, she protects the Scripture from false interpretation. For example, although she teaches infallibly that John 3:5 is about Justification being effected in Baptism (Trent VI, Ch. IV). She does not require that this is the only acceptable interpretation of that verse as long as one does not deny that this verse is interpretation. So, if one were to say that this verse is not just about justification but about becoming a member of the Body of Christ, this interpretation is perfectly in line with Catholic Teaching and acceptable.
Please! That is blasphemous. Christ as God created Mary, thru whom He would be incarnated, and who owes to God her very breath! And who did not run to her when she called him, but equated all who obeyed God as she beautifully exampled as being His mother, and brethren. (Mt. 12:47-50)
Matthew 12:47-50Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Again, we read Scripture differently. You take this as a rejection of Mary. But we see that Mary is the one who perfectly did the will of God. This is not a rejection of Mary but spiritually discerned an explanation of why she is His Mother.
Luke 1:38
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. ...
Out of which Catholics can only damnably extrapolate
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
Jesus was conceived in Her womb and thus took on her flesh. No other human being contributed since His was a virgin conception. Do you deny this?
cont'd
pt 4 cont'd PBJ,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
I don't know to what you refer there. However, Scripture teaches that we can all contribute to the salvation of our fellow man:
1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
And Mary contributed more than anyone else since she brought forth the Son of God, our Saviour.
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
Any parent ought to know how much she suffered when her Son was beaten and crucified.
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven,
Rev 12:1 John saw her bodily in heaven being crowned with a crown of 12 stars.
which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
He is the Father of Jesus Christ. She is the Mother of Jesus Christ. What does affinity mean to you?
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
God is her Son and as such, is bound by the Father's law to obey her.
Deuteronomy 5:16
Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee;....
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
Because God has deigned to give her such power. Notice how Christ performed His first miracle at her behest even though He didn't want to do so:
John 2 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew....
“Judge as to the ardent love with which God would have us honour Mary seeing that He has set in her the fullness of all good: in such manner that all we have of hope, all of graces, all of salvation, all -I say and let us doubt it not- flows to us from her” (St. Bernard: Sermo de Aquaeductu).
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
Very true. She is the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Queen of Heaven.
cont'd
pt 4, cont'd PBJ
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
That is a reference to the birth of Christ in our hearts.
1st. Scripture says that those who keep the Commandments of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are the seed of Mary (Rev 12:17).
2nd. Scripture says that no one can call Jesus Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).
3rd. Scripture says that Jesus was born in Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).
4th. Scripture says that the beloved of Jesus Christ take Mary as their mother (John 19:27).
Therefore, unless a person accepts Mary into his heart, the Holy Spirit will not engender therein a perfect love of Christ.
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
Note that St. Louis does not say that one would not be saved by invoking Our Lord. But only that salvation would be quicker sometimes if we invoke His mother.
The logic here is that Jesus Christ will show mercy and love to all who love His mother.
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
He means amongst humans. Amongst humans, Mary is our only true advocate because God appointed her our Mother and gave us to her as her seed.
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
All the grace which God has given to Mary is given to her so that she can dispose of it.
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
The mother of the King of Heaven is the Queen of Heaven.
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
She's the Queen of Heaven.
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
Angels in heaven are not constrained by time and space. Notice that they are not worshipping her. They are showing their respect for the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God.
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
That's true. I sincerely believe that no man can honor Mary more than God did when He blessed her to be the Mother of His Son.
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
I agree. The honor and dignity of being the Mother of the Eternal Son of God whom the whole of creation can't contain is beyond my imagination to conceive. There is no honor greater which any human being could receive.
8:48 AM, December 30, 2014
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
pt. 5.
Have you not read in Scripture?
Galatians 2:20
Which simply does not support such hyperdulia and praying to a Queen of Heaven, which only pagans are shown doing, which Paul, who never even mentions Mary by name, and only once states that Christ was born of a women, did not once example.
But it does prove that we are one with Jesus Christ and therefore seed of Mary.
Stop reading into Scripture what is not there, and admit this is a tradition of men!
On the contrary, it is the Tradition of Jesus Christ which He passed down through His Apostles and is the basis of the New Testament.
Go even find one example of anyone bowing down/ kneeling before a statue and praising the created entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
Insolence. Have you not heard that idolatry is also sin in the NT? In addition, while sometimes men bowed before others, this is never the case with believers in the NT, not men reigning as kings, as Peter himself showed, (Acts 10:25,26) let alone praying to them as if they were gods in Heaven.
Moreover, while Hebrews details how the new covenant is better, it only teaches prayer directly to the Lord, and the unique intercessory role of the Lord Christ, and never to angels or departed saints.
You are under condemnation for reading into Scripture what is manifestly not there, and making it your servant to support Rome, which does the same.
In a word, Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (Acts 3:19).
We take Jesus Christ as our example. Jesus Christ humbled Himself and chose the blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother. In imitation of Christ, we do the same.
James, what should follow is another series of the demeritted De Maria, whose blind defense of Romanism is so contrived as to make a Mormon blush. At least some of them.
He is also engaging me on another forum, and i am sorry if this one has gone on too long. But I do no intend to keep adding to this mans(?) damnation by continually refuting him here again and again.
Pt. 1 of series 2
Besides the fact that there also is no NT pastors titled “hiereus”=priests as there is no distinctive sacerdotal class of believers, ministers praying for others is nowhere that of praying to created beings in glory, which only are addressed to God.
You don't recognize the Priesthood which is everywhere depicted in the New Testament because you don't accept the Traditions of Jesus Christ.
Then stop trying to compel Scripture to support what is of tradition, as this is.
First, the Priesthood is here explicitly mentioned:
A. 1 Timothy 4:14
B. Here it is explicit in the original Greek, which loses something in the translation to English:
hierourgeō...Romans 15:16
Wrong. That may work for you on Catholic
Anwsers but the fact is that this is not a presbuteros being titled hiereus, which you could not find, and thus must resort to finding one of the commonalities btwn presbuteros and hiereus in order to justify doing what the Holy Spirit never ever does!
The fact is that all believers are to engage in sacrifice, including offering up offering acceptable sacrifice sanctified by the Holy Ghost, (Rm. 12:1; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only distinct priesthood in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states,
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)
And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)
Here is Jesus telling you that He has established a ministerial priesthood:
Which is not the dispute, as in fact He is the only one called a hiereus” that of the “archiereus.”
Pt. 2.
Have you ever wondered why the Disciples are guiltless? They ate bread on the Sabbath day and were guiltless because they were the equivalent of the Levites,
Christ first invoked 1 Samuel 21 which men were not priests, and NT presbuteros are the fulfillment of the Levites insofar as being the ministers of the New Covenant, but like in other fulfillments, there are distinctions. And under which presbuteros are never ever distinctively titled hiereus as they not engage in any distinctively sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
For instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)
And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)
Thus distinctively identifying Christian clergy with the same distinctive title used for the Jewish sacerdotal clergy (priests) rather than the term the Holy Spirit calls these pastors (presbyters/elders) is unscriptural and functionally unwarranted.
What occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.
D. Not enough for you? Here's another:
Luke 22:25-26...the Catholic Priests are the servants of the servants of God.
Here's another vain attempt to use a commonality to justify using a title which is never distinctively given to presbuteros, as they do not engage in a uniquely sacrificial service as their main function.
Give it up.
And Scripture alone is the supreme wholly inspired and infallible standard for obedience and testing Truth claims as the assured word of God, as is abundantly evidenced.
Show me from Scripture.
Take some time here , and then show me where the Lord regularly appealed to passed down oral tradition to refute the devil, and support His claims, and open up the minds of the disciples to.
And where it teaches an autocratic magisterium that can say something is binding Truth when Scripture does not record the event, and even when it has no early known testimony from "tradition."
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables..(2 Peter 1:16)
Because I see Scripture telling the NT church to obey priests.
Really? Go show me even one place where the NT church is told to obey priests (hiereus), denoting a distinctive class of sacerdotal clergy And admit to us your findings.
And without Scriptural substantiation being the basis for veracity, but instead being based upon the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility?
You just were exposed as nuking the NT church after you invaded another forum under that premise with its presuppositions.
Again, I see Scripture telling us to listen to the Church:
Indeed, but not as assuredly infallible, which excludes dissent from ever being right. As shown, the church began in with soul following itinerant preacher in dissent from the historical magisterium.
And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? (Mark 11:28)
We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
Pt. 3.
And it is faith alone which appropriates justification, (Rm. 4:5; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) but as Westminster and reformers taught , only the kind of faith that effects obedience is salvific.
So, you're qualifying faith alone. it is not by faith alone but by faith and obedience. Very good. That is what we believe as well:
Rather, if you could comprehend spiritual truth better you would see that i simply disabused you of your typical straw man of sola fide that some RCs rely on to deceive the simple.
In contrast, Rome teaches salvation based upon becoming good enough, salvation by works thru grace.
Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Indeed, as saving faith is the kind of faith that characteristically follows its Object, and repents when convicted of not doing so.
Holiness is a necessary fruit if faith is to be considered salvific, and marks one as a child of God, and whose faith is rewarded in recognition of its works, (Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35) Which is distinct from being formally justified by one's own degree of holiness, and entering Heaven thereby.
In contrast, presuming assured perpetual magisterial veracity, out of which fables such a bodily resurrected heavenly demigoddess can be made binding doctrine, is what of the devil, as such a magisterium is not of Scripture.
Scripture teaches that the Church will always teach the Wisdom of God:
Ephesians 3:10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Rather, Scripture teaches Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:30)
Which you do here. Contextually Eph. 3:10 is not even referring to the magisterium, but refers to the church as the one new man, the body of Christ, revealing the wisdom of God in "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6),
Which does not teach assured perpetual magisterial veracity, despite your wresting of Scripture to compel it to serve Rome!
Which conclusion does not follow the premise, as this does not translate into hearing virtually infinite numbers of mental prayers addressed to them...
Sure it does. You simply reject it. Souls in heaven are in eternity. By definition, they are no longer constrained by time and space.
That is absurd, as being in eternity does not translate into having all the attributes of Deity, nor that the latter gives them that use, despite what Roman reasoning contrives.
You make a mockery of Scripture by your elastic extrapolation, which might as well reason that all those in Heaven are omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent since they inhabit eternity.
Nor does the ability to communicate in this realm to other created beings equate to the ability of those in Heaven to know your thoughts, which only God is shown able to do, nor that they are to be prayed to even if they could, which all of Scripture only shows being done to God.
But it is nothing to you to abuse Scripture as your servant, as the weight of actual manifest Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for RC assurance of Truth, nor is it even essential (if it was she would be as evangelicals), only that it does not contradict her, but which is to be determined upon her official autocratic judgment as the one true church, which defacto disallows she could be wrong! What a cultic system.
Pt. 4.
God certainly speaks through the Catholic Church, yes.
God certainly can speak through a donkey (as me), but which again simply does not equate to assured infallibility no matter how much one wants it to.
Nope, we believe we receive mercy and grace at the Sacraments...The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given..May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."
You can believe what you want, but from infant sprinkling which only gets one wet, to extreme unction which is a usual precursor of death, not healing, these are forms of Godliness but lack real manifest power.
Heb 13:17 teaches that the saints of God are already interceding for us here on earth.
Are you serious? This is obviously referring to submitting to those who presently "have the rule over you," just as the preceding verse calls for sharing things in the temporal realm, and the proceeding verse asks prayer for those who are giving the pastoral exhortation.
Will you force Scripture after Scripture text to support Rome as Amnon forced Tamar? Have you no shame?
Show me where Scripture says they stop interceding in heaven.
So this is the basis for doctrine? Show me where this translates into praying to them, which is the issue, and that they have the power only God is shown to have to hear prayers addressed to them,
Then show me where they stopped baptizing and taking up collections for the saints, and any other activity you allow as a doctrine on such a basis.
(Hebrews 10:19) ...You brought it up. I just pointed out that it is a reference to the Eucharist.
It obviously refers believes immediate access thru Christ, without mention of any priest or ritual, but your private interpretation continues to display your irreverence toward Scripture, forcing it to say whatever you want it to in service to object of devotion.
Why would the Holy Spirit leave what out what is sppsd to be a common practice of the church?
No, it presumes that we are all alive in Christ, whether we are dead or alive on this earth, those who believe in Christ are alive in Christ. Do you deny this?
Unless you cannot read you know i affirm those who believe in Christ are alive in Christ on earth or in Heaven, but as said, this does not translate anywhere into prayers being addressed to them.
All your objections are being answered. They may not be to your liking, but they are according to the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Meaning every one of your arguments are refuted, as you must defend teaching for doctrines the commandments of Catholic men.
Indeed, but despite your attempts to compel Scripture to support your vain traditions, absolutely nowhere does God teach that this means praying to a special class of departed saints who alone are in Heaven, who like God can hear even infinite amounts of mental prayers addressed to them. Period.
It is shown by example and implication. We are in a New Dispensation in Christ. Those who went before us remain members of the same Body.
What an argument. Absolutely zero actual examples of anyone but pagans making supplication to created beings in Heaven,
while "implication" means that since believers ask others to pray for each other on earth, then this means that unlike on earth, they are to bow down in praise, veneration and prayer to created beings in Heaven,
and imagine these beings have power only God is shown to have,
and that thus believers in Bible times must have also commonly been doing so,
though the Holy Spirit thought any examples of this was unwarranted,
yet recording pagans making offerings and supplication to created beings in Heaven,
and providing 200+ prayers to God.
Leaving Caths to engage in such egregious extrapolation as befits cults.
Pt. 5.
You want to put on me the same unbiblical burden which you carry. But I don't have that burden.
Indeed, thus the noble Bereans would reject you, unlike Scripturally substantiated apostolic doctrine.
The Church does not teach that every Doctrine is explicit in Scripture. Your religion does and can't provide any example of such for those doctrines which are in opposition to the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Wrong. We do not require explicit teaching for all doctrine, but support such teaching as the Trinity due to the collective weight of Scripture, with explicit texts teaching the Deity of the Son and the Spirit as persons, which would make a denial of God as a Trinity contradictory.
This is simply not the case with PTDS, which lacks even one example or teaching addressing anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, or that they have the power of deity to hear all such, or that there is any created being in Heaven making incessant intercession btwn God and man, while abundantly showing only God being prayed to, and Christ being the incessant heavenly intercessor.
On the contrary, it is you who add to and take away from Scripture.
Are you insane, or does the wafer to this to you?!
We don't need to be told explicitly to bow our knee to the Mother of God
Or to the donkey you spoke to Balaam. After all, the Bible does not say animals are not in Heaven, or cannot hear prayer, and the prophet did ask him a question. If its not forbidden, it can be doctrine, and what communication happens on earth can happens btwn earth and Heaven.
"Our donkey, who art in Heaven.."
. First of all, we see one of the archangels of the Lord, who stands at the throne of God, condescending to approach Mary and praise her.
We also say Mary was graced and blessed among women, but you have to mean the angel was not declaring Mary was graced because she was an instrument of God, but was given hyperdulia because she was supremely virtuous, and thus that the angel prayed to her for help from Heaven (all of which you are supposed to be showing)?
. 2nd, we realize that it is really God who has condescended to give this mere mortal such praise.
So God also is engaging in all this? For we ourselves say "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (Luke 1:28) But obeisance and prayer by believers to saints is not there.
we realize that St. Elizabeth feels honored and humbled that Mary, the mother of her Lord would visit her, she said, "43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Indeed, and one should feel awed in the presence of a holy person, but which utterly fails to provide any example of obeisance and prayer as an almost almighty demigoddess, which Catholics make their imaginary Mary to be.
That is explicit enough for us.
That is just the problem. Explicitly lacking any actual warrant.
the manner of prayer that Christ taught was consistent with Scripture, not the novel "our Mother, who art in Heaven." Likewise the Spirit in true believers cries "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6)
No idea what you're talking about there.
Not surprising. Eyes have they but they see not.
Catholics are taught to read Scripture as though God was speaking to us...accept Jesus command to take Mary as our mother and bring her into our home
Then go and sell all you have. That is the problem with your one size fits all hermeneutic, which takes specific commands not given to all and makes them universal.
And consistent with the pope being the papa, if Christ meant for Mary to be looked to as the mother of the Church then it would have been fitting to leave Mary with Peter. But once again the Holy Spirit failed to cooperate with Rome, besides not speaking of Mary in the multitude other ways Cath. extrapolation invents for her.
Pt. 6.
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Again, where is this interpretation that the women is Mary taught as binding doctrine? The RC premise is that we need to stop engaging in private interpretation and submit to that of Rome's, which alone is binding. So why bother with yours?
He alone is set forth as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man
On the contrary, it is you who are taking away from Scripture. Scripture is clear that the Church is here to mediate between God and man. Or what do you do with this verse? 2 Corinthians 5:18
On the contrary, it is you who are taking away from my words. Do you understand what heavenly intercessor means? It means that is where His seat is, not in Rome.
Yet it remains this is not a prayer to someone in Heaven, much less multitudes bowing down and beseeching such for Divine aid, which believers are never shown doing even on earth, for "all ye are brethren."
In the New Testament, believers are already beseeching the Apostles for Divine Aid. Acts 5:15 Acts 19:11
Wrong again, as these we not believers bowing down and beseeching them.
Stop taking away from my words and adding to God's.
Since Jesus Christ taught by example that we are now free to communicate with the Saints and since we are admonished to ask for the prayer of righteous men (Mark 9:4), it follows that we are permitted to ask for the intercession of the Saints (James 5:16).
What leaping lying logic! So Jesus Christ exampled praying to created beings in Heaven for heavenly aid? You actually imagine conversing with Elias and Moses in an high mountain constitutes that?!
And that asking for the prayer of righteous men in this realm means bowing down and beseeching created beings in Heaven for heavenly aid, as if they had the Divine power to hear all such which only God is shown having?
One of the most common causes of death in the OT was unholy presumption. Remember that.
What did God do for Daniel that is a blessing greater than or equal to giving His beloved Son to be conceived in her womb?
Can't you comprehend the issue is that being told you are blessed because of unmerited favor (grace) does not translate into a command to engage in Cath hyperdulia throughout all generations?
Daniel was blessed to bring forth special revelation from God, but that does not mean believers were to engage in laudatory adulation beyond what is written, and pray to him in Heaven.
there simply is not a prayer to Mary in Heaven, any more than any communication on earth is,
Those words are right there, in black and white, which God addressed to Mary through His angel and His saint.
That is desperation on drugs. Neither God or angels anywhere made supplication to Mary, nor praised her as supremely righteous.
Moreover, rather than a command to engage in Catholic "hyperdualia" and making Mary an almost almighty demigoddess whose exaltation much parallels Christ, the manner in which we praise Mary is according to Scripture, "not to think of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6)
It is written that Mary is the Mother of Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. It is written that God called her blessed among women.
Which nowhere teaches Mary is an almost almighty Queen of Heaven, into whose hand all graces are committed, among multitude other idolatrous ascriptions.
Pt. 7.
It is written that she was crowned in heaven with 12 stars (Rev 12:1). It is written that she is the mother of all who keep the commandments and the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:17).
Simply unofficial interpretation, denied by other RCs, which correctly see the women as Israel and the church, not Mary in particular.
You want to ignore and reject those things which are written in Scripture. But I don't and won't.
Nonsense. The world can see how you do just that, and treat Scripture as a slave to be abused in service to Rome!
According to the Biblehubwhich is a Protestant Scripture website, the KJV, the Darby, the Webster and the World English say, blessed art thou among women.
Indeed, which does not say "God says that you are the most blessed" which you used in analogy in trying to justify praying to her as one excelling in virtue.
Because the way I read it, Mary is more blessed than any other woman that ever walked the earth because she will soon conceive the Son of God.... What woman has received a greater blessing than being the Mother of Jesus Christ? I'd really like to know.
But as said, this was due to the grace - unmerited favor- in what she received, not because she was more holy than all, which is what is behind the appeal to pray to her.
Mary was a holy and surrendered vehicle who suffered some reproach and a broken heart, yet who is relatively marginal in mention of her. And Scripture says "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) and it is not simply avoiding sin, which seclusion and a retired life is conducive to, and being blessed to be an instrument of God that defines the greatest saints in excelling in righteousness,
But it is doing that by enduring manifold temptations and infirmities in laboring for God while engaging the world, as "Jesus Christ the righteous" supremely did in becoming "perfect" by being all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
And then we have apostles, with Paul being not only laboring more than all in birthing multitudes of souls into the kingdom and pastoring them, and contending for the faith, and providing most of the NT, but of whom far far more is written of than Mary by the Holy Spirit of his sufferings and testings.
But who is relatively marginalized by Caths as compared to Mary, much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother figure which is likewise seen in paganism and cults, but never in Scripture except for the "Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Galatians 4:26)
Jael is called blessed among women because she killed a man in his sleep and thus rescued the Israelites. Mary is called blessed amongst women, twice, because she will soon conceive the Son of God (Luke 1:28) and because she had conceived the Son of God (Luke 1:42).
But both were called blessed among women as salvific instruments. The point is that the term was not unique to Mary, much less all that RCs add upon that basis far beyond what is written or inferred.
But you're equating the killing of a man in his sleep, with giving birth to the incarnate Son of God?
So you think God was wrong in killing enemies of Israel so as to preserve them, so that Christ could come?
That was a holy act took much bravery, as was being pregnant with the Christ. But as regards the logic that praying to the righteous warrants praying to Mary as the greatest saint, this confuses being a salvific instrument of Divine revelation with being the most righteous due to being the most tested and victorious, which requires much more reading into Scripture if you want to make Mary the most righteous saint.
Pt. 8.
The Catholic Church has been around 2000 years. Mormons were invented about the same time as your religion.
What anything seems to you has long ago been evidenced to be what you desire, while both Rome and the Mormons have the same basis for their claims to be the one true church, that of their own assured veracity.
Incense represents prayers addressed to God. But the angels and elders received them first. Therefore, they are serving as mediators between God and man.
Wrong. This did not mean they received them first nor served as as a postal service, but they were offered as a memorial which are only mentioned as part of the end time judgment in the opening of seals.
And which still does not make them as being prayed to and able to hear all such prayers, any more than they could open the seals themselves.
Bringing these memorial offerings is one things, making them the object of the offering is another, which is your burden to prove, but which you will never find anywhere in Scripture.
Where is it written that I must find it in Scripture?
Such is the recourse when Cath. attempts to find prayer to created beings in Heaven.
But as shown, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And as said, the church actually began with itinerant preachers establishing their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) under the premise of Scripture as being supreme over traditions being held as binding upon the premise of magisterial veracity, (Mk. 7:2-16) as per Rome.
And as i seek to be as those who were "more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so," (Acts 17:11)with me you must establish your claims thereby.
However, you actually should just admit you need not find it in Scripture, rather than engage in your profane and ridiculous attempts to compel Scripture to support Cath traditions.
The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholic Doctrine is in Scripture explicit or implied.
Which as said, is meaningless, since the premise of her most essential teaching that is nowhere seen or essential in Scripture, that of perpetual magisterial veracity, defacto excludes the possibility of Scripture from ever contradicting Rome.
For referring to your specious claim, your bishops imagine, "The Holy Spirit has hidden some dimensions of the mission of Jesus in the Bible. The truths of faith are clarified by the Tradition through the Magisterium, the Church’s authentic teaching office."
Meaning, as Keating said, “the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
And as Dulles fantasizes, "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;) then an infallible magisterium is even essential to know what Scripture consists of, as well as what it means (can be read into it).
Which is contrary to how the church even began!
Pt. 9.
I can find many times in Scripture where it is implied that we, in the New Dispensation of Jesus Christ, may address the Saints directly.
I have no doubt you could find - if need be - where it is implied that Mary walked on water and has charge over all the angels. Etc. Such is your credibility. But such is also only your private interpretation, wherein you wrest Scripture to support a teaching which has its source in tradition, and
But you, claim that you must have explicit support for all Doctrines in Scripture.
Why do you continue to say things that even i did not say, but have already corrected? Are you that desperate to finally win one argument?
Yet, you can't provide explicit support for the most basic of Protestant doctrines, such as Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura.
Wrong and wrong, except as regards your straw man, as has been shown. Maybe you get forums confused, or think you are back on Catholic Answers where such is supported.
One thing that you must recognize. We don't read Scripture the same way.
Well what a revelation. We certainly do not read into Scripture as you do, as all to see. For according to Cath , a salutation is prayer, a declaration of Mary being a reception of grace means she is being praised by God, and which translates into supporting kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer. And being in eternity can effectively translate into having whatever powers of Deity you need to support Cath. practices.
Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to Teach His Doctrines. 2nd, the Church wrote the New Testament on the basis of those Doctrines. 3rd, one of those Doctrines was communion of Saints which Jesus illustrated by:
And which means rather than being dependent upon what was written for its doctrinal foundation, the church is infallible and came before Scriptures, which owes its authority to her, and means whatever she infallibly says it does.
Which is illustrated by,
Teaching that all the saints are alive in Christ (John 11:25).
as meaning saints are like God in being prayed to and able to hear mental prayer, which somehow the God failed to think was worth mentioning even once.
Teaching that Abraham was awake and aware of life on earth (Luke 16:29). And that he felt he had enough authority to outright deny another soul's prayer.
Which means Abraham knew of the life of Lazarus not because Lazarus told him, but in any case hearing the cry of one who could see him as they were in the same realm (which is elsewhere manifested to be a requirement for such communication) somehow means Abraham was in Heaven and heard mental prayers that were addressed to him from earth.
But which somehow God failed to think was worth mentioning even once.
c. Teaching that one may offer sacrifices in the name of saints, prophets and disciples (Matt 10:41-42).
You are getting more desperate per moment. Which means being blessed for showing hospitality to living persons on earth (context) means you are to give such an aid as a cup of cold water to created beings in Heaven.
But which somehow God failed to think was worth mentioning even once.
d. Himself giving the first example of the communion of Saints by talking to Moses and Elijah on the Mountain (Mark 9:4).
Which means communication in the same earth realm (a high mountain or hill) btwn the Lord and created beings from Heaven, consistent with the restriction seen elsewhere, somehow translates into praying to created beings in Heaven from earth, but which somehow God failed to think was worth mentioning even once. And of them being able to hear such incessant prayers as only God is shown able to do.
Pt.10.
Scripture further emphasizes that we are in a New Dispensation where we are at home with the Saints by illustrating that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1).
And which nukes purgatory as it is written to all, and is positional, (Eph. 2:6) and surrounded by a cloud of witnesses refers to the witnesses testimony of their faith the previous chapter details, and does not teach praying to them, though this would be a prime opportunity.
And instead the Spirit goes on to say believers are to look to Jesus, "the author and finisher of faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2) Thanks be to God1
we, who are baptized, are walking side by side with them on the Mountain, just as Jesus was on Mt. Tabor (Heb 12:21-24).
Which likewise does not translate into prayer to them in Heaven, which somehow God failed to think was worth mentioning even once here or anywhere, while abundantly providing prayers to the Lord, and in teaching that only He is addressed in prayer to Heaven.
Don't you realize that all your attempts are actually an argument against this teaching being of Scripture, and have gained you no yardage but have left you in your own end zone?
Please find at least one literal prayer addressed to angels asking them to intercede. The Israelites certainly had need of them, but only addressed God in prayer.
I'm not bound by the Old Testament. I don't live in the shadow.
Oh. If the church had thought of that instead of actually preaching "he gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures. (Romans 1:1-2)
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
With over 200 OT refs God certainly though the NT needed its doctrinal foundation in what He wrote before. There is not covenantal distinctions in prayer btwn the OT and NT except that believer have a better intercessor in Christ and bold access by Him, thus if anything, praying to angels should be very common under the Cath. premise of the need for heavenly intercessors.
Hebrews 8:4
Which with its ref. to Exodus actually illustrates the need for OT substantiation!
Thus "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)
That to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord is only affirmed, but which simply does not translate into praying to created being in Heaven, nor that they can actually hear all these sppsd multitudinous prayers to them themselves
What does that even mean? Are you denying that those who die in Christ are alive in Christ?
If you can somehow misunderstand me as denying that those who die in Christ are alive in Christ then no wonder you can see Scripture as saying what it does not.
And if they are interceding for us when they are alive on this earth, what is going to stop them from interceding for us when they are alive in Christ?
Whether they do or not, this does not translate into praying to them, including the veneration that is unknown among brethren under the New Covenant, and excluded by Peter of a lost but pious man.
Meaning, recognizing that the New Testament didn't fall out of the sky but was written based upon an existing Teaching which was given the Apostles by Jesus Christ.
Indeed, and which itinerant (as far as the magisterium was concerned) Preacher Himself established His truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation,no the Cath. type premise perpetual magisterial veracity even of the instruments and stewards of Scripture.
Pt. 11.
this is simply an address by created beings to one on earth! Typical desperate specious extrapolation
This is an example of communion of saints. Created beings from heaven and earth speaking to one another.
Both the Lord and M+E were from heaven (note God and not M+E speak to the apostles, and instruct them to hear Christ, while the apostles wanted to make a residential community for them all), while all were in same realm and engaged in personal visible verbal communication. All of which affirms the manifest restriction i stated, and utterly fails to support what you desperately need to show.
Sounds as though you really don't believe that conceiving the Son of God in her womb was a special blessing. It sounds as though you think that there are greater blessings which God could bestow upon other women. Please name one.
Then again you create a straw man, as i affirmed "she actually was so blessed, not due to manifest supreme virtue but due to being the vessel God chose to incarnate Himself thru.
And which does not justify adding what plērēs says when it is not there.
Galatians 2:20 ..but Christ liveth in me
Stop reading into Scripture what is not there, and admit this is a tradition of men!
But it does prove that we are one with Jesus Christ and therefore seed of Mary.
And of Israel, which Mary was the seed of going back to Eve, and with Jerusalem as her heavenly mother and mine, without both of which there would be no Mary. Be consistent and make shrines to them.
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:26)
On the contrary, it is the Tradition of Jesus Christ which He passed down through His Apostles and is the basis of the New Testament.
WRONG! The basis of the New Testament is that of the OT, which does not support praying to created beings in Heaven among the 200+ prayers to God, or making instruments of God into objects of devotion to be bowed down to in praise and adulation and prayer indistinguishable to that of God.
The Cath. Mary is a modern day Nehushtan, an salvific instrument Israel turned into an object of devotion,
"the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." (2 Kings 18:4)
Go even find one example of anyone bowing down/ kneeling before a statue and praising the created entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer....while sometimes men bowed before others, this is never the case with believers in the NT, not men reigning as kings,
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
Note that St. Louis does not say that one would not be saved by invoking Our Lord. But only that salvation would be quicker sometimes if we invoke His mother.
More blasphemy, as the Spirit never teaches such prayer but goes on at length to show Christ as the all-sufficient intercessor with immediate access.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
He means amongst humans. Amongst humans, Mary is our only true advocate because God appointed her our Mother and gave us to her as her seed.
You interpretation. More likely hyperbole. The man is lost, and lost in his idolatrous ecstasy. And regardless, it is still wrong even if he means amongst humans.
Pt. 12.
We take Jesus Christ as our example. Jesus Christ humbled Himself and chose the blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother. In imitation of Christ, we do the same.
Blasphemy! The Lord did not teach what you make the Mary of Catholicism to be, and the hyperdulia givemn to through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified." and that “The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited," having “immeasurable greatness,” and "all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin,..." "her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...” having “authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,”...even that ”God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,.." " there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose." “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus.." "O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therefore we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. - . . Thou (Mary) art my only hope. . . . Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation..." "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse." so "we cannot honor her to excess.." http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/MarySC.html#ascriptions
1st. Scripture says that those who keep the Commandments of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are the seed of Mary (Rev 12:17).
Wrong. It is Israel which Mary is the seed of, and then the church Mary was redeemed to be part of.
2nd. Scripture says that no one can call Jesus Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). 3rd. Scripture says that Jesus was born in Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).
And which Holy Spirit inspired Scripture who never ever
has believers praying to created beings in Heaven, or ascribing the uniquely Divine powers RCs irreverently invoke Scripture to support!
4th. Scripture says that the beloved of Jesus Christ take Mary as their mother (John 19:27).
Scripture nowhere says what Caths extrapolate our normal care being given to a mother, nor that Mary is our heavenly mother, while what the Lord did say is,
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:49-50)
Therefore, unless a person accepts Mary into his heart, the Holy Spirit will not engender therein a perfect love of Christ.
Which deifies Mary. as in this sense only God/Christ is what believers are to have in their heart,
That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, (Ephesians 3:17)
To have the Mary of Scripture in one's heart in fondness is to reject the idol Caths make of her, as she most assuredly does!
Pt. 14
All the grace which God has given to Mary is given to her so that she can dispose of it.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
You have been and are!
The mother of the King of Heaven is the Queen of Heaven.
More adding to Scripture, and damnation for you. Even if earthly gender positions are not abrogated spiritually, as they are in Christ in the purely spiritual realm, (Gal. 3:24) it still does not support anyone or a queen Mary having "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven," which only God is shown having, while rewards and crowns are not given until the Lord's return.
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
She's the Queen of Heaven.
Prove that even this power of assignment was given her or shut up for your own good.
•whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
Angels in heaven are not constrained by time and space. Notice that they are not worshipping her. They are showing their respect for the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God.
This is insane. Its like dealing with a Mormonic moonie!
That's true. I sincerely believe that no man can honor Mary more than God did when He blessed her to be the Mother of His Son.
That Mary cannot "be honored to excess" will not stepping over the line of adoration is like claiming oral sex is not sex.
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
I agree. The honor and dignity of being the Mother of the Eternal Son of God whom the whole of creation can't contain is beyond my imagination to conceive.
I do not think that there is much that is beyond the Cath imagination to conceive of in giving what is only termed "hyperdulia" in name to Mary.
Rev 12:1 John saw her bodily in heaven being crowned with a crown of 12 stars.
Wrong again, but not official teaching anyway.
He is the Father of Jesus Christ. She is the Mother of Jesus Christ. What does affinity mean to you?
Its what it means to a RC. I believe some translations have "equality," but i do not have the Latin.
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
God is her Son and as such, is bound by the Father's law to obey her.
Utter BLASPHEMY!!! The created is subject to the Creator, and the position which Christ chose to take as a child does not change that, much less for eternity.
You are one damned soul! Repent!
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
Very true. She is the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Queen of Heaven.
The conclusion does not follow in the kingdom of God, and in rewards are not given till the Lord's return, and after which the apostles shall judge the 12 tribes of Israel, and all brethren shall judge angels, and zero is said of a Mary in particular and a Queen of Heaven.
Pt. 15.
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
Because God has deigned to give her such power. Notice how Christ performed His first miracle at her behest even though He didn't want to do so:
Nowhere it is taught or inferred that anyone "seems to have the same power as God," or even that Mary now reigns in Heaven.
And in Jn. 2, Mary did not even tell the Lord to do something, and only mentioned a need presuming he would handle it. But far from being lord over the Lord, He is putting her in her place, requiring her to remember not to presume upon God's sovereign plan.
The Lord's "Women" reminds her of her female status, and the "what have I to do with thee" response is from the OT, which is an objection and is also said by a master to remind supplicants that the master is under no obligation to grant the request.
And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? (2 Samuel 19:22)
And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. (2 Kings 3:13)
Thus rather than being subject to Mary, the Lord reminded her first of her need for subjection, not to presume upon Divine will, but which need Christ in grace provided having first affirmed Divine primacy.
The truth is that the Catholic Church accepts the interpretations that the Woman of Rev 12 is:
1. Israel,
2. The Church,
3. and especially, the Virgin Mary.
But your interpretation is that it is particularly Mary, which is only an interpretation - and wrong.
The Catholic Church has only infallibly declared a few interpretations of Scripture. And Rev 12:17 is not one of them.
I certainly knew that. But the RC recourse when faced with refutation from Scripture is to assert that one must submit to the one true church since without that we have variant interpretations.
Yet the RC has "a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage," as "only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty." (Jimmy Akin)
Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Again, we read Scripture differently. You take this as a rejection of Mary. ..This is not a rejection of Mary but spiritually discerned an explanation of why she is His Mother.
Indeed you must, calling things that are not as if they are. I did not say this was a rejection of Mary, for she was one of many who spiritually was a mother to Christ, and thus it was a rejection of her as being uniquely being spiritually a mother to Christ, and whose call He did not have to run to. The real Mary received this, and deplores the demigoddess Caths make of her, which they will realize on judgment day - to the eternal horror of most/
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
Jesus was conceived in Her womb and thus took on her flesh. No other human being contributed since His was a virgin conception. Do you deny this?
Do you affirm this makes the Creator indebted to His creation? I would not be surprised if you defended that it does!
You are lost and damned by your own affirmations of Mariolatry., Sad to say.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:30)
Thanks. Hope that was not too much.
In the light of DM's manifest excessive abuse of Scripture, I actually can see some warrant in Rome's restriction of access to the Bible by laymen, and forbidding them to debate.
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)
...when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy. But [even] the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm
Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to teach, and be taught by them divine things; for in one Church God has made "different members," according to the word of the Apostle... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 1 of series 2
Then stop trying to compel Scripture to support what is of tradition, as this is.
It is a Tradition established by Jesus Christ.
Wrong. That may work for you on Catholic
Anwsers but the fact is that this is not a presbuteros being titled hiereus,...!
We don't follow your rules. We don't read Scripture according as Protestants. The New Testament is written according to the Traditions which Jesus Christ established. Jesus Christ established a priesthood, the Apostles. This is clear from Scripture.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, ....
The fellow is misinformed.
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals,....
He's talking about the first use of the words.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 1 of series 2
Then stop trying to compel Scripture to support what is of tradition, as this is.
It is a Tradition established by Jesus Christ.
Wrong. That may work for you on Catholic
Anwsers but the fact is that this is not a presbuteros being titled hiereus,...!
We don't follow your rules. We don't read Scripture according as Protestants. The New Testament is written according to the Traditions which Jesus Christ established. Jesus Christ established a priesthood, the Apostles. This is clear from Scripture.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, ....
The fellow is misinformed.
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals,....
He's talking about the first use of the words.
Pt 1 of series 2 with pbj cont'd
Which is not the dispute, as in fact He is the only one called a hiereus” that of the “archiereus.”
Jesus Christ is not expressing His own priesthood, but showing that He is God and that the Disciples are His ministerial priests:
Here is Jesus telling you that He has established a ministerial priesthood:
Matthew 12:
1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Have you ever wondered why the Disciples are guiltless? They ate bread on the Sabbath day and were guiltless because they were the equivalent of the Levites, the ministerial priests of the Old Testament. The Levites were in the Temple, eating and working on the Sabbath. But there is one greater than the Temple and His ministerial priests are free to eat and work on the Sabbath, because He is Lord of the Sabbath.
The Levites were the Father's ministerial priests. The Disciples are Jesus' ministerial priests.
D. Not enough for you? Here's another:
Luke 22:25-26
King James Version (KJV)
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Have you ever heard it said that the Catholic Priests are the servants of the servants of God. That is the basis of that saying.
That's what Jesus means. You don't like it because you don't see the word "hierus" spelled out. But we recognize it because we see Jesus' priests acting in His priestly capacity everyday:
2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 2.
Christ first invoked 1 Samuel 21 which men were not priests, and NT presbuteros are the fulfillment of the Levites insofar as being the ministers of the New Covenant, but like in other fulfillments, there are distinctions.....
No, no, no, no. Jesus there compared the OT Levites, the OT priests, to His Disciples.
Here's another vain attempt to use a commonality to justify using a title which is never distinctively given to presbuteros, as they do not engage in a uniquely sacrificial service as their main function.
Yes, they do. You don't understand the OT sacrificial system and therefore do not see it fulfilled in the NT.
First of all, Jesus Christ fulfilled the OT sacrifices with His own body. And now, we have to consume His flesh in order to participate in His sacrifice.
Hebrews 10:5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
It is this Body which we receive in Holy Communion.
Give it up.
Why should I?
Take some time here , and then show me where the Lord regularly appealed to passed down oral tradition to refute the devil, and support His claims, and open up the minds of the disciples to.
In the very verses which you are referencing. You don't understand that the Church is here in Christ's stead. When the Catholic Church interprets the Word of God according to the Traditions of Jesus Christ, that is fulfillment of Jesus Christ using the OT to refute the Devil.
It is Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Magisterium means Teacher:
John 3:2
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher ....
And where it teaches an autocratic magisterium that can say something is binding Truth when Scripture does not record the event, and even when it has no early known testimony from "tradition."
That's never happened. All Catholic Doctrine is was passed down by Jesus Christ in Sacred Tradition and is found in Sacred Scripture either explicit or implied.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables..(2 Peter 1:16)
Really? Go show me even one place where the NT church is told to obey priests (hiereus), denoting a distinctive class of sacerdotal clergy And admit to us your findings.
The Rulers of the Church are the priests which Jesus Christ appointed:
Hebrews 13:17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
And without Scriptural substantiation being the basis for veracity, but instead being based upon the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility?
We have Scriptural substantiation. Much more than you since you want explicit texts but can't produce them for Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide, which are the pillars of your faith.
You just were exposed as nuking the NT church after you invaded another forum under that premise with its presuppositions.
I'm awaiting your response there.
Indeed, but not as assuredly infallible, which excludes dissent from ever being right. As shown, the church began in with soul following itinerant preacher in dissent from the historical magisterium.
The Church is described as infallible more than once. That's all I need. The verse I provided also shows that the Church is considered authoritative.
And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? (Mark 11:28)
We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
But, do you obey the men whom God tells you to obey?
Hebrews 13:17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Notice that they have to give account for your soul. Who, amongst your rulers in the Church, gives account of your soul to God?
PeaceByJesus said...
Rather, if you could comprehend spiritual truth better you would see that i simply disabused you of your typical straw man of sola fide that some RCs rely on to deceive the simple.
On the contrary, you have simply put yourself in a bind. Since, now, Sola Fide has lost its meaning. Sola Fide means faith "alone". If you must add something to faith in order for it to be salvific, you have invalidated the term "sola fide". It is now, faith and obedience. And obedience entails works. So, you have admitted the Catholic Doctrine.
In contrast, Rome teaches salvation based upon becoming good enough, salvation by works thru grace.
So do you since you now teach faith and obedience.
Indeed, as saving faith
But not faith alone.
is the kind of faith that characteristically follows its Object, and repents when convicted of not doing so.
There you go! Perfect conformity with the Catholic Doctrine. And you have eschewed the Protestant error. Because it is perfectly true that:
James 2:22
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect
Holiness is a necessary fruit if faith is to be considered salvific, and marks one as a child of God, and whose faith is rewarded in recognition of its works, (Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35)
Faith and works again confirmed. Thank you.
Which is distinct from being formally justified by one's own degree of holiness, and entering Heaven thereby.
Which contradicts faith alone, since the adherents of that lie habitually judge themselves holy enough to be saved.
In contrast, presuming assured perpetual magisterial veracity, out of which fables such a bodily resurrected heavenly demigoddess can be made binding doctrine, is what of the devil, as such a magisterium is not of Scripture.
But the fact that Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven is in Scripture. So, it is not a fable (Rev 12:1).
Rather, Scripture teaches Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:30)
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the Church will always teach the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).
Which you do here.
On the contrary, it is you.
Contextually Eph. 3:10 is not even referring to the magisterium, but refers to the church as the one new man, the body of Christ, revealing the wisdom of God in "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6),
It is a reference to the Catholic Church.
Which does not teach assured perpetual magisterial veracity, despite your wresting of Scripture to compel it to serve Rome!
Yes, it does. And not just there, but it is demonstrated by the fact that the Church wrote the New Testament.
That is absurd, as being in eternity does not translate into having all the attributes of Deity, nor that the latter gives them that use, despite what Roman reasoning contrives.
I didn't say anything about the attributes of God. But Scripture, metaphorically expresses, that the Angels and Saints receive the prayers of the faithful where it depicts them presenting the prayers to God.
You make a mockery of Scripture by your elastic extrapolation, ....
And you strip the Gospel of its power with your rejection of the Teachings of Christ.
Nor does the ability to communicate in this realm to other created beings ....What a cultic system.
The Catholic Church has been given the New Dispensation of Jesus Christ. We walk on the mountain of God with the Saints. Believe it!
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 4.
God certainly can speak through a donkey (as me), but which again simply does not equate to assured infallibility no matter how much one wants it to.
Soooo? Are you implying that God is not infallible whether He speaks through a donkey or whomever?
You can believe what you want, but from infant sprinkling which only gets one wet, to extreme unction which is a usual precursor of death, not healing, these are forms of Godliness but lack real manifest power.
We believe that God can heal through water.
2 Kings 5:10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
Are you serious?
As a heart attack.
Will you force Scripture after Scripture text to support Rome as Amnon forced Tamar? Have you no shame?
Jesus did not write the New Testament. Jesus established Traditions and the Church wrote the New Testament based upon those Traditions. You don't understand the New Testament because you cast out the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are Its basis.
So this is the basis for doctrine?
Jesus Christ is the basis of Doctrine. Doctrine preceded the New Testament. The Catholic Church was passing down Doctrine without the New Testament for 300 years.
Show me where this translates into praying to them,
You are hung up on the word "pray" as "worship". However, praying to them in the form of requests for healing is clearly shown in the Scriptures:
Acts 5:15
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Matthew 8:16
When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
Do you see the parallel between how the populace responded to the Apostles and how they responded to Jesus?
cont'd
PBJ pt 4 cont'd
which is the issue, and that they have the power only God is shown to have to hear prayers addressed to them,
That is your issue. But Scripture shows that they not only hear the prayers but bring them before God in a clear portrayal of intercession.
Then show me where they stopped baptizing and taking up collections for the saints, and any other activity you allow as a doctrine on such a basis.
We still baptize. We still take up collections. So I don't know what that's about.
It obviously refers believes immediate access thru Christ,
Through the Eucharist.
without mention of any priest or ritual, but your private interpretation continues to display your irreverence toward Scripture, forcing it to say whatever you want it to in service to object of devotion.
He didn't need to mention anything else. He's speaking to Catholics. Protestants didn't come around for 1400 more years.
Why would the Holy Spirit leave what out what is sppsd to be a common practice of the church?
He didn't. It is mentioned in many places.
1 Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Unless you cannot read you know i affirm those who believe in Christ are alive in Christ on earth or in Heaven, but as said, this does not translate anywhere into prayers being addressed to them.
You don't translate it so. But we do. Because we don't translate the Scriptures according to 20th century culture. We interpret the Scriptures according to the Teaching of Jesus Christ upon which it is based.
Meaning every one of your arguments are refuted, as you must defend teaching for doctrines the commandments of Catholic men.
I don't think so. It is your arguments which are being refuted.
Indeed, but despite your attempts to compel Scripture to support your vain traditions, absolutely nowhere does God teach that this means praying to a special class of departed saints who alone are in Heaven, who like God can hear even infinite amounts of mental prayers addressed to them. Period.
Jesus Himself was the first to show us the New Dispensation of speaking to the Saints when He spoke to Moses and Elijah on the mountain. We are now on the mountain with the Spirits of just men made perfect. And we take Jesus as our example when we commune with them.
What an argument. ....Leaving Caths to engage in such egregious extrapolation as befits cults.
Again, you may not like it, but we are imitators of Christ when we communicate with the Saints.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 5.
Indeed, thus the noble Bereans would reject you, unlike Scripturally substantiated apostolic doctrine.
On the contrary, Catholics are the modern Bereans. We accept Tradition and Scripture according to the Teaching of the Church. The Bereans did not go by Scripture alone.
Let’s look at the text.
Acts 17:
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Now, ask yourself, “why were the Bereans more noble than the Thessalonicans?
The answer:
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
You might ask me, “Which word? Scripture is also called the word.”
The answer:
The word the Apostles preached.
You might continue, “How do you know it isn’t the Scripture?”
The answer:
Because they searched in the Scripture to find the Apostles word therein.
Here is what goes right past Protestants. They don’t even see it because of their presuppositions against the Traditions of Christ.
1st. The Apostles were Teaching. That is the Tradition we call “Magisterium”.
2nd. I repeat, the Apostles were Teaching. That means they were passing down the Traditions of Christ by Word. That is simply called, “Sacred Tradition”.
3rd. The Bereans looked up the Sacred Tradition in Scripture.
That is the Catholic Teaching of passing down the Faith of Jesus Christ by handing down Tradition, Scripture. That is what is depicted in the Berean episode. Not Scripture alone.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 5.
Wrong. We do not require explicit teaching for all doctrine, but support such teaching as the Trinity due to the collective weight of Scripture, with explicit texts teaching the Deity of the Son and the Spirit as persons, which would make a denial of God as a Trinity contradictory.
Both the Trinity and the Communion of Saints are Catholic Doctrine.
There is no basis in Scripture for Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide.
This is simply not the case with PTDS, ....
We also say Mary was graced and blessed among women, but you have to mean the angel was not declaring Mary was graced because she was an instrument of God, but was given hyperdulia because she was supremely virtuous, and thus that the angel prayed to her for help from Heaven (all of which you are supposed to be showing)?
By the way, did you ever respond to the question I asked. What greater blessing was bestowed to any man or woman than the blessing of bearing the King of all Creation in her womb?
So God also is engaging in all this? ....That is just the problem. Explicitly lacking any actual warrant.
No, see, the problem is this. You see where you ask, "So God is engaging in all this?" Apparently, you don't even realize that God sent the Angel to give this praise to Mary and God the Holy Spirit inspired Elizabeth to do the same.
the manner of prayer that Christ taught was consistent with Scripture, not the novel "our Mother, who art in Heaven." Likewise the Spirit in true believers cries "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6)
And He gave us the example of communion with the Saints.
Not surprising. Eyes have they but they see not.
We step by faith and not by sight.
Then go and sell all you have.
1. Many Catholics have. St. Francis of Assissi did just that. But quote the entire commandment:
Matthew 19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
2. Jesus is here expounding on the doctrine of indulgences. Yeah, the very same Doctrine that Protestants sarcastically call buying your way into heaven. Read it carefully, "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:"
That is the problem with your one size fits all hermeneutic, which takes specific commands not given to all and makes them universal.
It is you with the one size fits all hermeneutic. We have the Traditions of Jesus Christ which inform us on the meaning of the Scriptures.
And consistent with the pope being the papa, if Christ meant for Mary to be looked to as the mother of the Church then it would have been fitting to leave Mary with Peter.....
Catholic Doctrine is spiritual and must be spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 7.
Simply unofficial interpretation, denied by other RCs, which correctly see the women as Israel and the church, not Mary in particular.
It doesn't matter if other Catholics deny it. It is, however, taught by the Popes.
Pope John Paul II
1995 Encyclical
Evangelium Vitae
On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
"The one who accepted "Life" in the name of all and for the sake of all was Mary, the Virgin Mother; she is thus most closely and personally associated with the Gospel of life. Mary's consent at the Annunciation and her motherhood stand at the very beginning of the mystery of life which Christ came to bestow on humanity (cf. Jn 10:10). Through her acceptance and loving care for the life of the Incarnate Word, human life has been rescued from condemnation to final and eternal death.
For this reason, Mary, "like the Church of which she is the type, is a mother of all who are reborn to life. She is in fact the mother of the Life by which everyone lives, and when she brought it forth from herself she in some way brought to rebirth all those who were to live by that Life".
As the Church contemplates Mary's motherhood, she discovers the meaning of her own motherhood and the way in which she is called to express it. At the same time, the Church's experience of motherhood leads to a most profound understanding of Mary's experience as the incomparable model of how life should be welcomed and cared for.
"A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun" (Rev 12:1): the motherhood of Mary and of the Church
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 6.
Again, where is this interpretation that the women is Mary taught as binding doctrine?
Evangelium Vitae.
The RC premise is that we need to stop engaging in private interpretation and submit to that of Rome's,
Wherever you disagree with Catholic Doctrine. Correct.
which alone is binding. So why bother with yours?
It is the Church's Doctrine.
On the contrary, it is you who are taking away from my words. Do you understand what heavenly intercessor means? It means that is where His seat is, not in Rome.
Then you are forgetting the Angels and Saints which bring the prayers of the faithful to God.
Yet it remains this is not a prayer to someone in Heaven, much less multitudes bowing down and beseeching such for Divine aid, which believers are never shown doing even on earth, for "all ye are brethren."
But we see the multitudes lining up for the Apostles to heal.
Wrong again, as these we not believers bowing down and beseeching them.
Wrong again. Because the believers were certainly not demanding anything of them:
Acts 5:11-12King James Version (KJV)
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. 12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
Stop taking away from my words and adding to God's.
You are the one adding to God's word your presuppositons.
What leaping lying logic! So Jesus Christ exampled praying to created beings in Heaven for heavenly aid? You actually imagine conversing with Elias and Moses in an high mountain constitutes that?!
That is correct. He exampled communication with the Saints. That is the name of our Doctrine, the Communion of Saints.
And that asking for the prayer of righteous men in this realm means bowing down and beseeching created beings in Heaven for heavenly aid, as if they had the Divine power to hear all such which only God is shown having?
As long as we don't worship them, everything is all right.
One of the most common causes of death in the OT was unholy presumption. Remember that.
It is those who claim to be saved by faith alone who should keep that foremost in their minds and repent of that sin.
Can't you comprehend the issue ....
Answer the question:
What did God do for Daniel that is a blessing greater than or equal to giving His beloved Son to be conceived in her womb?
Daniel was blessed to bring forth special revelation from God, but that does not mean believers were to engage in laudatory adulation beyond what is written, and pray to him in Heaven.
Is that a greater blessing than bringing for the Son of God?
That is desperation on drugs. Neither God or angels anywhere made supplication to Mary, nor praised her as supremely righteous.
God took flesh and became her son and sat on her lap and asked her for sustenance. Do you deny it?
Moreover, rather than a command to engage in Catholic "hyperdualia" and making Mary an almost almighty demigoddess whose exaltation much parallels Christ, the manner in which we praise Mary is according to Scripture, "not to think of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6)
Mary is the mother of our Lord. What can you do for her that is greater than that honor?
Which nowhere teaches Mary is an almost almighty Queen of Heaven, into whose hand all graces are committed, among multitude other idolatrous ascriptions.
It Teaches that she is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the King of Heaven.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 7.
Nonsense. The world can see how you do just that, and treat Scripture as a slave to be abused in service to Rome!
Nonsense. The New Testament is based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ. The Teachings of Jesus Christ, the Word of God are the guide by which the New Testament is to be understood and the rule by which any doctrine is to be measured.
False doctrines, such as Sola Scriptura, clash with the New Testament because they were not taught by our Lord.
Indeed, which does not say "God says that you are the most blessed" which you used in analogy in trying to justify praying to her as one excelling in virtue. .....
But as said, this was due to the grace - unmerited favor- in what she received, not because she was more holy than all, which is what is behind the appeal to pray to her.
Besides the point. The point is that she is more blessed than any other woman that ever lived. In fact, more blessed than any other created being that ever existed because God blessed her to be the Mother of His Son. If you deny this, then tell us which blessing is greater and to whom it was given?
Mary was a holy and surrendered vehicle who suffered some reproach and a broken heart, yet who is relatively marginal in mention of her. And Scripture says ....But both were called blessed among women as salvific instruments. ....So you think God was wrong in killing enemies of Israel so as to preserve them, so that Christ could come?
That was a holy act took much bravery, as was being pregnant with the Christ. ....if you want to make Mary the most righteous saint.
All that is besides the point. Answer the question. Who has received a greater blessing than Mary?
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 8.
What anything seems to you has long ago been evidenced to be what you desire, while both Rome and the Mormons have the same basis for their claims to be the one true church,
Lol! You're introducing the Mormons into this discussion in order to muddy the waters. If you want to debate Mormons, you should challenge them. As for me, I'm debating you.
that of their own assured veracity.
Let me get this straight, your complaint is that the Catholic Church knows she Teaches the Truth? Does that mean that YOU don't know if what you are saying is true?
Because if you're sure of your veracity, how do you complain about the Catholic Church being sure of Hers? And if you are not sure of your veracity, how do you know that the Catholic Church is not Teaching the Truth?
Wrong.
The Scripture says so. The incense represents the prayers of the faithful.
This did not mean they received them first ....
If you don't want to believe the Scripture, that is your business.
And which still does not make them as being prayed to ....
It doesn't make them not being prayed to, either.
Bringing these memorial offerings is one things, making them the object of the offering is another, which is your burden to prove, but which you will never find anywhere in Scripture.
The Teachings of the New Testament are based upon established Tradition. Not the other way around.
Such is the recourse when Cath. attempts to find prayer to created beings in Heaven.
Where is it written that it must be explicit in Scripture? Even you admitted that you don't need explicit references. So, answer the question.
But as shown, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
By whom? See, you don't even understand what you are saying. If the Scripture is alone, then who is establishing the truth claims? Who is using the Scripture to reprove, correct and instruct (2 Tim 3:16)? You can't see the forest for all your presuppositions. Scripture is not alone. Scripture can't be alone. The Scriptures must be understood in accordance with the underlying Tradition upon which basis they were written by Holy men of the Church which were inspired of the Holy Spirit to do so.
It is by Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and Magisterium that truth claims are established. Not by Scripture alone.
And as said, the church actually began with itinerant preachers establishing their Truth claims....
Jesus Christ established the Church (Matt 16:18-19). No one else did it.
And as i seek to be as those who were "more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so," (Acts 17:11)with me you must establish your claims thereby.
You are falling short. You are like the Thessalonicans which accepted the Scripture ALONE but rejected the Traditions of Jesus Christ which were taught by the Apostles who came there representing the Church which Jesus Christ had built.
cont'd
cont'd
However, you actually should just admit you need not find it in Scripture, ....
As long as we follow the infallible Catholic Church, we don't need to find it in the Scripture. But, if we, like Luther and Calvin and the other misguided Fathers of the rebellion against God's Church, begin to make new doctrines, then these doctrines will be compared to the Scriptures to see if they are found therein.
As we can see, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide both contradict the Word of God and must be discarded because they are inventions of men.
Which as said, is meaningless, since the premise of her most essential teaching that is nowhere seen or essential in Scripture, that of perpetual magisterial veracity, .....
Your continued repeating of that claim will not make it true. The fact is that the Scriptures teach that the Church is infallible in explicit terms (Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 3:15).
For referring to your specious claim, your bishops imagine, "The Holy Spirit has hidden some dimensions of the mission of Jesus in the Bible. The truths of faith are clarified by the Tradition through the Magisterium, the Church’s authentic teaching office." ....Which is contrary to how the church even began!
The Church began this way:
Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 9.
I have no doubt you could find - if need be - where it is implied that Mary walked on water ....
Why do you continue to say things that even i did not say, but have already corrected?
Because you do. You want explicit texts from us but do not require the same thing of yourself. You claim that Sola Scriptura is in Scripture, but you never point to anything that says Sola Scriptura. But when we say that the verses we provide depict the Communion of Saints, you simply require an explicit text.
You have nothing to prove Sola Scriptura. And we have many verses to prove Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.
Are you that desperate to finally win one argument?
So you're admitting that this is true.
Wrong and wrong, except as regards your straw man, as has been shown. Maybe you get forums confused, or think you are back on Catholic Answers where such is supported.
Show me from Scripture.
Well what a revelation. We certainly do not read into Scripture as you do, as all to see. ....And which means rather than being dependent upon what was written for its doctrinal foundation, the church is infallible and came before Scriptures, which owes its authority to her, and means whatever she infallibly says it does.
Which means that the New Testament was written based upon a pre-existing Tradition. A Tradition which Protestants discarded and which is a necessary context for understanding the Word of God in Scripture.
as meaning saints are like God in being prayed to and able to hear mental prayer, which somehow the God failed to think was worth mentioning even once.
There is no failure there. God knew that His Word was given to Catholics which kept the Traditions of His Son.
Which means Abraham knew of the life of Lazarus not because Lazarus told him, but in any case hearing the cry of one who could see him as they were in the same realm (which is elsewhere manifested to be a requirement for such communication) somehow means Abraham was in Heaven and heard mental prayers that were addressed to him from earth.
Both/and
But which somehow God failed to think was worth mentioning even once.
Again, not a failure. These things had already been taught by Jesus Christ and were the basis of the written word and therefore, those who kept the Traditions would understand the Scriptures:
2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
You are getting more desperate per moment. Which means being blessed for showing hospitality to living persons on earth (context) means you are to give such an aid as a cup of cold water to created beings in Heaven.
Apparently, you don't know what that means. But, you discarded the Traditions, so you wouldn't. That means, that if you give someone water because you are imitating a Saint, God will remember you for that:
Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
But which somehow God failed to think was worth mentioning even once.
It is continually mentioned in the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the Scripture.
Which means communication in the same earth realm (a high mountain or hill) btwn the Lord ....
It is an illustration of Mount Sion:
Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
ut the fact is that this is not a presbuteros being titled hiereus,...!
We don't follow your rules. We don't read Scripture according as Protestants. The New Testament is written according to the Traditions which Jesus Christ established. Jesus Christ established a priesthood, the Apostles. This is clear from Scripture.
It is "answers" as this, and your abounding logical fallacies and non-sequiturs and simply inane responses that marginalize you as one not fit for meaningful debate.
Why should i spend more hours typing with my arthritic fingers refuting the same arguments and whatever new abuses of Scripture and contrivances are compelled by you cultic devotion?
You have already effectively invalidated the NT by your cultic basis for determination of Truth, and reproving you more will only add to your damnation.
If you can find another RC who wants to use defend your arguments send him along. It will be hard to believe anyone can match your level of absurdities.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt.10.
And which nukes purgatory, as it is written to all,
Not at all. You need to read it more carefully:
Heb 12:23 and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
These are just men who have already passed through the purifying fire of purgatory or which have been purified by their suffering on this earth.
and is positional, (Eph. 2:6)
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
That matches perfectly. And explains that we are now in communion with all the souls that are in the Body of Christ. We, therefore, understand that since we are together, alive in Christ, we can communicate one with the other.
and surrounded by a cloud of witnesses refers to the witnesses testimony of their faith the previous chapter details,
Partly. But it refers moreso to the fact which Elisha revealed, even in the Old Testament:
2 Kings 6:16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. 18 And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.
and does not teach praying to them, though this would be a prime opportunity.
Asking saints to pray for us is already part of the Gospel:
Acts 8:24
Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
And instead the Spirit goes on to say believers are to look to Jesus, "the author and finisher of faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2) Thanks be to God
It is because we look to Jesus that we have recourse to His Saints.
I'm not bound by the Old Testament. I don't live in the shadow.
Yes, you are. You don't see the New Dispensation in Christ and want to put your burden upon everyone else. But we are made free by Christ and now walk amongst the Saints and commune with them.
The Old Testament Saints were approved by God and yet did not enter heaven. Therefore, there was no one in heaven to whom the OT Israelites could pray. But, when Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, He went to the place of the dead which we call Purgatory, where the OT Israelites were awaiting Him in order to be led to the promised land, which is a metaphor for heaven:
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
You understand neither the Scripture, nor the power of God.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 11.
Both the Lord and M+E were from heaven (note God and not M+E speak to the apostles, and instruct them to hear Christ, while the apostles wanted to make a residential community for them all), while all were in same realm and engaged in personal visible verbal communication. All of which affirms the manifest restriction i stated, and utterly fails to support what you desperately need to show.
That was Jesus Christ speaking to them. And He was still walking this earth as man. Therefore, He gave us an example to follow in His steps.
Then again you create a straw man, as i affirmed "she actually was so blessed, not due to manifest supreme virtue but due to being the vessel God chose to incarnate Himself thru.
And which does not justify adding what plērēs says when it is not there.....
Answer the question. What blessing is greater than bearing the Son of God in the womb and giving Him birth?
WRONG! The basis of the New Testament is that of the OT,
Are you still sacrificing goats and bulls?
which does not support praying to created beings in Heaven among the 200+ prayers to God, or making instruments of God into objects of devotion to be bowed down to in praise and adulation and prayer indistinguishable to that of God....
You remain stuck in the OT. In the New Dispensation of Christ we walk with the Saints upon MT. Sion. In the OT, the Jews had no saint in heaven to whom to pray since they had not been admitted into heaven until Jesus Christ set the captives free and led them in.Hebrews 11:39-40King James Version (KJV)
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 12.
We take Jesus Christ as our example. Jesus Christ humbled Himself and chose the blessed Virgin Mary as His Mother. In imitation of Christ, we do the same.
Blasphemy! The Lord did not teach what you make the Mary of Catholicism to be, and the hyperdulia givemn to through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified."....
Don't you see, that Jesus emptied Himself of Divinity and became man in the Virgin's womb?!
Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Luke 2:51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
No amount of adulation from here to eternity by any or all men ever created will suffice to equal such a blessing which God bestowed upon Mary. And yet, all of us who love God and Jesus through the Holy Spirit, pledge to do our best to imitate the perfections of God with respect to the woman whom He chose to be His Son's mother.
Wrong. It is Israel which Mary is the seed of, and then the church Mary was redeemed to be part of.
It is both. But it is more Mary. Israel is a nation and the metaphorical mother of the messiah. But Mary is the actual mother of Jesus Christ and the Woman of Rev 12, is a woman and the mother of the Messiah. You do agree that the child born of her is Jesus, right? If you do, then the Woman has to be Mary.
And which Holy Spirit inspired Scripture who never ever has believers praying to created beings in Heaven, or ascribing the uniquely Divine powers RCs irreverently invoke Scripture to support!
But Scripture does show,
Saints in heaven receiving the prayers of the faithful.
Saints in heaven surrounding us on earth.
Saints in heaven alive.
Us walking with the Saints upon the mountain.
And, commands us to pray for one another.
And, depicts saints asking other saints for their intercession.
Scripture nowhere says what Caths extrapolate our normal care being given to a mother, nor that Mary is our heavenly mother, while what the Lord did say is,
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:49-50)
Which is an explanation as to why Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. Because she most perfectly did the will of God.
cont'd
De Maria continues:
Pt 12 (concerning beloved disciples taking Mary into their hearts)
However, you missed the reference which I was making. Let us go deeper into Scripture than Protestants are accustomed to do.
First, Scripture tells us to go beyond the letter to the Spirit of the Word:
2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV)
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Because the truths of Scripture are spiritually discerned:
1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So, let us go to the spirit of the text in question.
John 19:26-28
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. 28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Now, are you a beloved disciple of Christ? To put it differently, are you a disciple whom Jesus loves?
Catholics would answer, "Yes" to that question and therefore accept Jesus command to take Mary as our mother and bring her into our home (i.e. heart).
For the second part of this explanation, you need to be aware of other verses in Scripture.
Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The seed of the Woman is not just Jesus. Let me show you:
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Do you consider yourself someone who keeps the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus? If so, then you are seed or a child of the Woman. That Woman is Mary. And therefore, Scripture says that all who fight the good fight on behalf of God in Christ, are children of Mary.
It is really hard to understand how, a person who claims to love Jesus with all their heart, mind and soul, does not love Mary more than any other person upon this earth. That is what hyperdulia is based upon. And, in my opinion, we can never do it justice.
No wonder you can't understand that Mary is blessed above all women.
PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 14
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
We don't. It is you who do so. It is Protestants who add traditions of men such as faith alone and Scripture alone and which have discarded 7 books from God's inspired Scriptures.
Prove that even this power of assignment was given her or shut up for your own good.
Rev 12:1, Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven.
More adding to Scripture, and damnation for you. ....
You pretty much have the same complaint over and over in pt. 14. Suffice to say:
We understand that Jesus established Traditions and passed them down by word and that the Church wrote the NT based upon these Traditions.
It is because Protestants have discarded these Traditions that you see the 16000+ denominations that you have today and multiplying rapidly.
Pt. 15.
Nowhere it is taught or inferred that anyone "seems to have the same power as God,"
James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
or even that Mary now reigns in Heaven.
Revelation 12:1King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
The Lord's "Women" reminds her of her female status, and the "what have I to do with thee" response is from the OT, which is an objection and is also said by a master to remind supplicants that the master is under no obligation to grant the request.
and yet, He obeyed His mother.
And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? (2 Samuel 19:22)
And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. (2 Kings 3:13)
Thus rather than being subject to Mary, the Lord reminded her first of her need for subjection, not to presume upon Divine will, but which need Christ in grace provided having first affirmed Divine primacy.
And yet, He did as she commanded. And it is in line with Scripture elsewhere:
Luke 2:51
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
But your interpretation is that it is particularly Mary, which is only an interpretation - and wrong.
According to you. But I'm not subject to you. The Catholic Church accepts my interpretation.
I certainly knew that. But the RC recourse when faced with refutation from Scripture is to assert that one must submit to the one true church since without that we have variant interpretations.
That is correct.
cont'd
pt. 15 cont'd
Yet the RC has "a great deal of liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage," as "only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty." (Jimmy Akin)
That is correct. As long as Sacred Tradition is not violated, one may hold an interpretation until the Catholic Church says it is false.
Indeed you must, calling things that are not as if they are. I did not say this was a rejection of Mary, for she was one of many who spiritually was a mother to Christ, and thus it was a rejection of her as being uniquely being spiritually a mother to Christ, and whose call He did not have to run to. The real Mary received this, and deplores the demigoddess Caths make of her, which they will realize on judgment day - to the eternal horror of most/
I understand that you don't like my explanation, but it is better than making a mockery of Scripture as you would if we held with Protestants that Jesus was belittling Mary. You would have Him violating the Commandments and violating His Father's message by the Angel where He calls her blessed above all women.
Do you affirm this makes the Creator indebted to His creation? I would not be surprised if you defended that it does!
Non sequitur It is the Creator who gave her, her body to begin with. Nothing can make the Creator indebted to creation.
Now, answer my question:
I asked:
Jesus was conceived in Her womb and thus took on her flesh. No other human being contributed since His was a virgin conception. Do you deny this?
Well, d'ya?
You are lost and damned by your own affirmations of Mariolatry., Sad to say.
I await God's judgment. As the Apostle said:
1 Corinthians 4: 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:30)
That describes the Protestant Reformers. They were all Catholic Priests, originally. Then they betrayed God and started their own false religions.
PeaceByJesus said...
Thanks. Hope that was not too much.
Not at all.
In the light of DM's manifest excessive abuse of Scripture, I actually can see some warrant in Rome's restriction of access to the Bible by laymen, and forbidding them to debate.
It is you and Protestants who continually abuse Scripture. Even the lowliest devout Catholic layman understands the Word of God better than the loftiest Protestant scholar. The reason being that we understand the Traditions which underly the Scripture and therefore, understand what the Scripture truly means.
Let me give you an example. Protestants continually judge themselves saved by faith alone. And they get flustered when they ask a Catholic, "Are you saved?" And he says, "I don't know. Christ is my judge."
But which is the Scriptural answer?
1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
The Protestant is exalting himself. The Catholic, humbling himself.
Luke 14:11
For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
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)
That is no longer in force. The Popes have been marshalling us to join the fray:
DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY
APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS,
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
INTRODUCTION
1. To intensify the apostolic activity of the people of God,(1) the most holy synod earnestly addresses itself to the laity, whose proper and indispensable role in the mission of the Church has already been dealt with in other documents.(2) The apostolate of the laity derives from their Christian vocation and the Church can never be without it. Sacred Scripture clearly shows how spontaneous and fruitful such activity was at the very beginning of the Church (cf. Acts 11:19-21; 18:26; Rom. 16:1-16; Phil. 4:3).
Our own times require of the laity no less zeal: in fact, modern conditions demand that their apostolate be broadened and intensified. With a constantly increasing population, continual progress in science and technology, and closer interpersonal relationships, the areas for the lay apostolate have been immensely widened particularly in fields that have been for the most part open to the laity alone.....
...when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy..... Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM
However, it is forbidden for Protestants to interpret Catholic documents because they have no idea what they are looking at or how to understand them.
PeaceByJesus said...
It is "answers" as this, and your abounding logical fallacies and non-sequiturs and simply inane responses that marginalize you as one not fit for meaningful debate.
Why should i spend more hours typing with my arthritic fingers refuting the same arguments and whatever new abuses of Scripture and contrivances are compelled by you cultic devotion?
You have already effectively invalidated the NT by your cultic basis for determination of Truth, and reproving you more will only add to your damnation.
If you can find another RC who wants to use defend your arguments send him along. It will be hard to believe anyone can match your level of absurdities.
But you haven't been able to refute, even one. Your fingers hurt, so do mine. And, even so, I will refute your arguments wherever I find them.
Anyway, I bear you no animosity. I know that you have been deceived. I pray that one day, you will understand the love which we have for those who love God. Loving them is not the same as worshipping them. Nor is asking them to intercede for us.
Thanks for engaging me in discussion.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Post a Comment