"The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons?" (Matthew Schultz)
Addendum: (June 30, 2018) The debate goes to the nature of the gospel in the way Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree with each other, and they also touched on issues like purgatory, church history, Semi-Pelagianism, Augustine, Gottschalk, the development of doctrine, the wrath of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and Sola Scriptura and the Canon. Rich in content.
When Dr. White mentioned Semi-Pelagianism and Gottschalk, it reminded me of R. C. Sproul’s analysis of church history how Semi-Pelagianism crept back into the church between the Council of Orange (529 AD) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
Posts
19 comments:
Peter was very certain that nobody prior to Calvin believed in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement".
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14.
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-catholic-answers-forum-part-3.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-catholic-answers-forum-part-4.html
Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? was just posted on Free Republic" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3669317/posts from https://web.archive.org/web/20140528104851/http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm
PBJ:
Thanks for the heads up.
I offer you my comments on this debate here:
http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2018/07/indulgences-debate.html
In brief summary, White loses this debate on the simple fact that he misrepresents our belief/confession/teaching on indulgences. We cannot and should not have to answer to his interpretation of our belief/confession/teaching. The strange part is, he mentions our teaching, but then ignores the fact that indulgences have nothing to do with salvation - as the recipient of an indulgence would already be "saved" or "in the state of grace" - outside of which, there can be no indulgence.
To the greater glory of God, (AMDG)
Scott<<<
I really have to agree with Mr. Windsor: indulgences have nothing to do with salvation.
Finally, common ground.
Scott: Could you, in theory, obtain an indulgence for yourself? I assume so, if you are currently, "'saved' or "'in the state of grace'."
Hope you stay "'saved' or "'in the state of grace'"!!
EA - (smile)
James - To answer your questions in order:
1) Yes. One can obtain a plenary or partial indulgence for themselves.
2) Your assumption is correct.
3) "Saved" (or "condemned") is a judgment which will be passed on each of us when we stand before the Judgment Seat.
4) I too hope to stay in the state of grace, but if (when) I falter, there is a means to restore me to that state.
Thank you!
Scott<<<
Indulgences (rejected by EOs as non-traditional) is based on Purgatory, which is based upon a false premise, that of the need for perfection of character (if by grace) in order to be with God, versus penitent faith which appropriates justification, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of.
However, this saving justifying faith, is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus.
The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, (Colossians 3:1-4) to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21)
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)
But which progressive practical sanctification is not the cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our disobedience.
In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism, even without the required wholehearted repentant faith. (Acts 8:38; 8:36,37)
However, since the carnal nature remains and few successfully attain to complete victory over any attachment to sin and perfection of character, then most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory.
To be continued
Pt. 2
There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails and how long are not dogmatically taught, but while salvation by grace thru faith as in sola fide means it is effectual faith being imputed for righteousness that justifies, salvation by grace thru works means that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God, which premise either requires perfection of character in this life (and which merely being made clean in baptism would actually not effect) or postmortem purifying torments.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.
And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory
Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
However, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)
And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4)At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)
The debate on "indulgences", if we can call it that, was quite frankly, terrible. Peter offered absolutely nothing of substance when he actually got around to mentioning indulgences. He talked about quite a few things, rarely indulgences. The only thing I can recall him saying that was already quite obvious, was that you won't find indulgences in Scripture and he's completely fine with it. Waste of time, imo.
PBJ,
While I get the rationalizations you put forth, the question of the debate was "Do Indulgences Deny the Gospel?" Regardless of the EO stance and the prooftexting you can do to rationalize there is no Purgatory and hence no indulgences - I can provide prooftexts which allow us to rationalize that there is indeed a Purgatory -and- if it exists, then the Church, through her authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses, could indeed loose in a a plenary or partial fashion the time spent in Purgatory.
Back to the question at hand, "Do Indulgences Deny the Gospel?" White continually attempted to equivocate indulgences with salvation, ironically even after he put forth the truth of the matter - that indulgences are ONLY for those who are saved already. Hence, there is NO denial of the Gospel message of salvation and since White's position asserted the positive (that indulgences DO deny the Gospel) - he therefore loses this debate.
Scott<<<
I do not check this email often, so i missed this reply.
While I get the rationalizations you put forth,
No, what you do not get then is that Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4)At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
Since all you see are rationalizations I repeated what Scripture says, which all your strained or wrested appeals to texts which do not teach Purgatory cannot refute.
- I can provide prooftexts which allow us to rationalize that there is indeed a Purgatory -
And which attempts have been refuted here in a succession of posts, and shown that belief in Purgatory is not what is manifest in the the only wholly inspired authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels). But there is always another RC devotee who seems compelled to defend whatever Rome imagines, regards of how cultic it makes them look.
and- if it exists, then the Church, through her authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses, could indeed loose in a a plenary or partial fashion the time spent in Purgatory.
Please. Parroting prevaricating propaganda may be comforting to the Catholic choir but it simply will not stand the test of examination of what the NT church believed in the most ancient substantive record. But I do understand that Rome 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, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Maybe you want to try the "The Church ® gave you the Scriptures, thus it is the supreme infallible authority on what it means" argument.
that indulgences are ONLY for those who are saved already.
I think I expressed that, except that "saved" in Scripture means the next conscious reality for believers after this life it is with the Lord. Who is not in RC Purgatory.
May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Greetings PBJ, I took the time to respond fully to your posting. It became too long (mostly because of the list of Bible verses you cited, but didn't quote) for a combox response so I posted to my blog. Click Here for my response.
In Christ,
Scott<<<
Pt. 1
I do not recall seeing your reply which came 6 days after my last post, but seeing as I have much later come by your sophistry then I will take some time (hours for me to type) to refute your poor attempt at trying to refute my reproof of RC Purgatory.
In response to Lk. 23:43, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise," you respond Purgatory IS part of Paradise. Only the SAVED can be in Purgatory, but which bare assertion misses the point of my citing this text, which was part of showing that Paradise is now Heaven.
However, Purgatory is NOT Paradise, AKA "Abraham's bosom," since that is a place of comfort, (Luke 16:25) not "fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.'" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina)
Next, in response to the corresponding text (2Cor. 12:4, "That he was caught up into paradise...") that I listed together with the above, you state, This speaks NOTHING about after this life, yet it certainly does, being caught "up to the third heaven,"(2Cor. 12:2) and your own NAB notes support the inference that this was God's abode. And with my point being that paradise is now Heaven, where those whom Christ set free went at His resurrection. Thus supporting what I stated, when "Scripture clearly speak[s] of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord."
Next, in response to Rv. 2:7 ("I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God"), you argue that this cannot be used against Purgatory, but that it even supports it, stating, "He that overcometh (the trials of Purgatory) shall eat of the tree of life...."
However, it is against Purgatory since not only is the tree of life in paradise, versus the two being the same, or preceding it (both of which you have now argued), but together with the other verses this testifies to what I said, that the next conscious reality for believers is with the Lord.
Next, when faced with the next corresponding verse, Phil 1:23, "having a desire to depart and to be with Christ," you admit that Paul here expresses his desire to be with Christ, yet blithely assert, "there is no negation of Purgatory here," yet there certainly is.
For as shown, paradise was a place of comfort, not fire and torments or purifying' punishments, and is the 3rd heaven, where the tree of life is, and thus the Lord, and the imperfect Paul (Philippians 3:12,13) expressed he would go to be with once absent from his earthly body.
Which bring us to the next verse of conflation which you are compelled to deny, 2Cor. 5:8, "to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord." To which you again blithely assert, there is no denial of Purgatory here! The desire to be in Heaven does not mean there is no Purgatory.
Yet there certainly is for the same reason as was shown. To die as a believe is to be with the Lord, in paradise, the 3rd Heaven, versus awaiting that reality by becoming actually good enough thru RC Purgatory.
Next up, 1Cor. 15:51ff' "the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed," which (once again taking in isolation) you argue, this "does not preclude going to Purgatory." However it does, for as the next verse in my list states,
1Thess. 4:17 - "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."
To which you wishfully assert, SW: Keep in mind, those in Purgatory WILL be with Him forever too. Still no preclusion of Purgatory here.
However, contrary to your imposed intermediate stage, those who die or are alive at the coming of Christ go directly be with the Lord forever, non-stop, and which is a reality you cannot avoid despite your compelled assertions to the contrary.
Pt. 2
Yet as you must deny what Scripture teaches, then faced with the next verse, 1Jn. 3:2 ."...when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is," you assert, "what we shall be does not mean we will not be purified before we get there."
However, contrary to this intermediate stage, the substantiated fact remains that to be absent from this life via death or the Lord's return is to be with the Lord forever. And that as stated, "the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection."
And which the next verse conflates with, Rm. 8:23, "...the redemption of our body." Which again is met with your simple denial that this does not equate to no Purgatory, but which intermediate stage is just what is missing and must be imposed to support a tradition of men.
Worse, next, in actually trying to wrest support, you abuse Scripture by taking a verse which speaks about the resurrection (1Co 15:53, "this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality)," and making it refer to or support Purgatory, stating,
"Yes, when we go to Purgatory our corruption puts on incorruption."
However, 1Co 15:53 is not speaking about Purgatory, a condition commencing at death, of making atonement for sins and becoming pure enough to enter Heaven, but refers to the (first) resurrection, that of the bodies of believers who already directly went to be with the Lord, and with the only transformative experience after this life being that of made like Christ in the resurrection!
Moving on, after I stated that "At which time [the resurrection] is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the > only suffering after this life," you incredibly assert that 1 Corinthians 4:5 which refers to this, "supports Purgatory! "Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness..." but every man shall still have praise from God? Even though the things of darkness are exposed - "every man" who is in this purification IS saved and shall have praise from God!"
Which is either ignorance or sophistry, for RC Purgatory is not the resurrection of believers, which is what 1 Corinthians 4:5 refers to, and which resurrection awaits the return of Christ, and is the time when the Lord gives reward unto His servants at the judgment seat of Christ, making what they did manifest and rewarding them. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) In which one is saved despite the loss of such fruit, not because of the loss. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
You next try (of-course) to face 2 Timothy 4:1,8 ("...the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day..."and to which you respond with I would be relatively certain that St. Paul suffered his Purgatory while still on Earth."
Which misses the point, that this text goes together with the other texts which show that the day of Christ is the resurrection and when believers shall be judged and gain or less rewards, which is not Purgatory. Meanwhile Paul himself testified that he had not yet attained unto perfection, nor did he ever express hope that Purgatory would do it, but while he strove to presently be (what he was positionally in Christ) perfect like he would be in the resurrection, (Philippians 3:10-15) he only pointed to that event as effecting charge after this life, when Christ "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:21).
Part 3
You next are faced with Revelation 11:18 ("...the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants...") which conflates with the other texts which establish that 1 Cor. 3:8-15 awaits the return of the Lord Jesus and the judgment seat of Christ. Yet which you yet try to spin as supporting Purgatory, or at least not denying it, stating, nothing is denying a time of purification of those souls who WILL BE rewarded."
Yet no matter how much RCs need to spin 1 Cor. 3:8-15 as referring to Purgatory or supporting it, this is simply disallowed even by the very FACT that this awaits the return of Christ, versus commencing at death as with Purgatory!
Meanwhile the suffering is not that of being purified of character faults so that one may be good enough to enter Heaven and with "saints" who went there directly, but the judgment is of believers who are already with the Lord, and the suffering loss is that of the manner of workmanship believers attempted to build the church with being burned up (as tares will be), but which one is saved despite of
Next you respond to Matthew 25:31-46, which testifies to believers being rewarded, by asserting, EVERY MAN who goes to Purgatory SHALL GO INTO LIFE EVERLASTING too! . but which is simply begging the question, that of presuming the very thing that has only being invalidated, that of Purgatory being referred to.
Along with this attempt to compel what 1 Cor. 3:8-15 refers to as being Purgatory, or supporting it, that those being purged will "suffer loss" though they will still be "saved" in the end.
But which is the very argument that has just been shown to be utterly untenable! Some RCs seem to think that much of any verse which refers to purification supports Purgatory, but which simply fails, and such extrapolation testifies to the desperate measure RCs can resort to in the light of what Scripture actually manifestly clearly consistently teaches as regards believers after this life.
Yet you actually double-down on arguing what which is untenable, invoking (A verse from me) 1 Cor. 3:15 , which simply cannot refer to Purgatory, and actually contradicts it as explained.
IF it is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself is still saved! That is PRECISELY what Purgatory is all about!
The reality that something is being burned up from the saved simply does not translate into Purgatory, due (again) to the fact that this event awaits the Lord's return, and what is consumed are believers works, not character defects, and the subjects are already with the Lord, and will still be saved despite such less, not because of them.
Yet you must still blindly insist, Yes, this IS Purgatory!... NOT ONE of those verses refutes Purgatory and which further testifies to RC blindness or ignorance and or sophistry.
Part 4
Which is also invalid, untenable, and the logic (being the magisterial discerners and stewards of Scripture means such possess infallibility of office and thus are to be submitted to) used in support of it ultimately invalidates the NT church itself. The Peter of Scripture was not the Peter of Rome , which even the EO's argue tradition does not support (which it does not ), but this post is already long enough
then Scripture lies to us in telling us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses
Including that she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses. For Rome 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, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
However Scripture nowhere lies to us and tells us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses without error, for while all authority has power to bind and loose, varying in scope and degree, which Scribes and Pharisees has as do fathers and husbands, this does not mean such possess infallibility of office .
IF there is merit to the Church having said authority THEN the matter of Purgatory is not really up for debate anymore. IF the Church does not have this authority - then Scripture lies to us in telling us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses and that binding and/or loosing is also in effect in Heaven.
At least you are honest and implicitly reveal why RCs can so blithely dismiss what refutes them and abuse Scripture in compelling it as a slave to support Rome and their assertions in support of her, as you have. For that is what it is so often for them, an slave abused to support Rome, and not the sure and supreme standard for Truth claims as is is abundantly evidenced to be, which even the veracity of the apostles was subject to. Instead church law is to be supreme, under the false premise that God is the author of both.
In contrast , Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church, including in Acts 15, versus the basis for veracity resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Yet again, this would be another thread, and as it is I will likely have to split this one up, while RC Purgatory remains a fable, one of the many distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).
May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Post a Comment