The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

(Continuing on....)

Again, look more closely at Romans 8:1. It doesn’t say anything about “delivering us forever” or "guaranteeing for us a title to heaven" irrespective for what we do (That’s reading into the text, and again begging the question). This statement also continues to assume that justification is only a one-time, once-for-all event, and that certainly hasn’t been proven. The passage says there is “no condemnation to those who are [present tense] in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” I’ve already shown how 1 John 1:7 is very similar—that the blood of Christ cleanses us [present tense] from our sin when we walk [present tense] in the light.

At this point we need to investigate, from the Biblical evidence, whether or not once a person is in Christ he is irrevocably and necessarily always in Christ. There's actually plenty of Biblical evidence to show that is not the case, but that one must choose to continue in Christ and to remain/abide in Christ (as I've pointed out several times now!). But lets primarily look at the words of Paul from Romans (we'll look at another similar passage later):

"Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand [present tense] by faith. Do not be haughty but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but towards you goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you will also be cut off." Romans 11:20-22.

So here Paul warns the Gentile Christians, who have already been grafted into the vine/root (Christ) and are currently standing (actively) by faith, that they too can be cut off (just like the unbelieving Jews) if they don't continue "in His goodness". This admonition in and of itself should put to rest the canard that such warnings about falling away, etc, only concern those who allegedly "were never saved to begin with"! When you remember that this passage in Romans 11--along with the one in Romans 2 where it says God will render to man "according to his deeds" at the judgment, and the caveat in Romans 8 that there's no condemnation for those actually in Christ and are walking according to the Spirit--is part of the same epistle often proof-texted to support a once-for-all "sola fide" justification, it is readily obvious how much the article writer(s) and other like-minded folks disregard the overall context of Paul's thinking and misunderstand his points about justification, faith, and works. It certainly should dispell the notion that a person justified (or reckoned righteous) once in his life "can never be sent to hell".

(continued....)

 

So this brings us to the article’s treatment of JAMES

It means just what it says: that a ‘man is justified by works, and not by faith alone’. James even uses the specific example of Abraham saying that he was “justified by works when he offered up Isaac”.

Well, it specifically says in verse 21 that Abraham himself was “justified by works”. It’s both faith and works together (v.22)—not one apart from the other. Further, justification means “reckoned righteous” not “made righteous” (I thought at least this has already been established by now!)

The text is equally clear that “faith was working together with his works” and “by works faith was made perfect”. And of course, earlier in the passage James is emphatic that faith without works is dead and cannot save (more on this below).

Well, it means just what James said that he was justified by works, and concludes by saying that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In other words, he was justified by both working together (v.22), not by one without the other. (Can it be anymore plain?)
By now it should be obvious that James 2 is problematic to those who hold that justification only occurs once and onc-for-all-time. We know that in Gen 15 it says that Abraham believed God and that it was accounted to him as righteousness, and that Paul points out that this was before he was circumcised (Romans 4). However, James notes that Abraham was also justified "by works" when he offered Isaac. This demonstrates that justification occurs more than once in a person's life, and that although this occurs "apart from the deeds of the Law", it is "not by faith alone".

But for those who persist in supposing despite the evidence that justification is only a one-time, once-for-all event, here's a challenge:
When in Abraham's life did this once-for-all justification allegedly occur? (Chapter and verse please)

Not quite. The passage James indicates what it takes for faith to ultimately be “saving”, and that is for it to be made perfect by works. Notice the rhetorical question in verse 14:
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone saves he has faith but does not have works? Can faith SAVE him?”
The issue is whether or not faith can save a person if he doesn’t also have works. The answer James teaches through out the passage is obviously, “no”. He emphatically finishes this section by stating: “Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”(v.26) . Notice that the body without the spirit isn’t non-existent: there is an actual body, but it’s just dead and lifeless. The point is likewise that the faith itself being discussed here is not “non-existent”, but rather that it does exist but is dead if it doesn’t have works and is therefore profitless for salvation.

 

(Continuing on...)

Except the words (or idea of) “what sort of” faith is not to be found in the text! This is clearly an example of “reading into the text” on the part of the article’s author. However, the article is correct when it states: “it ends by concluding faith without works is dead faith, or unsaving”.
James is not comparing and contrasting different kinds of faith. He's referring to faith in the same sense through out the passage--faith meaning "intellectual assent" to theological truth. This can easily be seen when one substitutes "intellectual assent" for "faith" throughout the scriptural passage. When one does this the meaning remains coherent throughout and makes sense of the whole passage. (This is in contrast to trying to read differing "sorts of" faith into the text--sometimes the bad sort, sometimes the good sort--in which the argument becomes nonsensical and the passage distorted.) James' point is that while faith (intellectual assent to the truth) is not bad in and of itself, it is profitless for salvation without works (of love and loving obedience). So one can be deeply convinced intellectually in the fact that Christ's death and resurrection offers atonement/forgiveness/salvation, and that there's nothing one can do to earn his salvation--and that one may have actually sincerely prayed the sinners prayer at one point--but if this one lacks works his faith is "dead" and cannot ultmately profit for salvation.

Exactly—that’s just what I said above.

No, no, no. First, “justification” (again!) means one is “reckoned righteous”; it’s not the “means for becoming righteous.” Second, the passage—as I’ve pointed out several times now—says that Abraham was justified by works, that the faith (intellectual assent) needed the works to be made perfect and would otherwise be “dead” without them!

That totally disregards the grammar of the passage. James says that “a MAN is justified by works and not by faith alone”, he does not say that “a man’s FAITH is justified”!
(Come on, now…READ THE TEXT!!!)

No, it says the function of works is to make faith perfect, with the two working together. If faith (intellectual assent/conviction) lacks works, it’s dead and can’t ultimately save or justify anyone!

(continued...)

 

(Continuing on...)

Whoever said works are “currency” which we purchase our place in heaven? This seems to be a straw man based on some polemics from the Middle ages when a quasi-Pelagianism seemed to pervade much of the western Church expressed in the whole superrogatory merit-indulgences-purgatory complex (the "SMIPC" if you will :laugh: ) This has nothing to do with the actual orthodox catholic biblical teaching.

.
However these works don’t come passively or automatically to the one who has simply "been saved" at one point in his life. Otherwise, Paul wouldn't have instructed Titus to constantly affirm "that those who have believed in God must be careful to maintain good works" (Titus 3:8)

But we must actively ABIDE in Christ . And since he brought up John 15:
"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away" (15:2)
Notice this is in reference to "branches" in Christ--not to folks never in Christ to begin with! Also:
"If anyone does not ABIDE in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire and they are burned." (v6)
Notice again that one can't be cast out as a branch if they were never a branch to begin with. And it's to the branches that Christ says to "Abide in Me" in order to bear fruit (v4). This is something we must continually choose to do, and the ones who keep Christ's commandments are the ones who are abiding in Him (1 John 3:24).

Yet, Peter said in verse 5 that we must be diligent to ADD these things to our faith—not that they come passively or automatically!
“But also for this reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was purged of his old sins. Therefore brethren be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11).

In other words, we have to be diligent to add these things to our faith, and even more diligent to make our election sure. (This doesn't come passively or automatically!) It's those who do diligently do these things that will have and entrance supplied to Christ's everlasting kingdom.

Which of course is consistent with what Paul says regarding eternal life:
"[God] who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'; eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 2:6-10)

And of course is consistent with Christ Himself:
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:28-29)

 

I think it's safe to say that when one considers all the biblical data, that the true doctrine is not that one is "justified by faith alone", but that one is ultimately "reckoned righteous" by "faith working through love" as this is what "avails" (Gal 5:6). On this, James, Peter, Paul, and John--and of course CHRIST--would all agree.

 

Post 63 still waiting for an answer

Starts out like this

Then I respond...

 

One is challenged to imagine a case where the Pharisees in Mark 7 could not easily have used just such transparent logic to ignore Christ as he pointed to the error of their tradition in "one case" where it violated scripture.

In fact one is hard pressed to find how any JW, Mormon or Catholic could not easily use that method to justify each instance where their teachings violated scripture and they could find no Bible based response to the problem.

I find it hard to believe that you can possibly be satisified with such methods.

1. What a funny way of running away from the point that so clearly debunks your position. Though I suppose making an empty accusation is as good as any way of retreat.

2. It is funny how this "run away" tactic get's used - at then end of a line of thought when the Bible appears to soundly refute it.

If you actually have some facts about me not using sola scriptura arguments in this discussion or in any discussion - please feel free to allow actual fact to enter your response at any time. Even if (as in this case) is merely a runaway response.

 

Post with key point challenges to the anti-sola-scriptura arguments so far (post 93, 94 and 95 starting here) - are going unnanswered -- dead silence.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1123608#post1123608

One can not miss the fact that the points raised there can not be controverted and so the response is "to bail".

How "instructive" for the reader.


Hint: Another point equally instructive --

Among those denominations who {along with the RCC} try to debate against the sola-scriptura methods used in Acts 17:11 - there STILL exists disputes over both scripture AND tradition BETWEEN even THOSE groups. (Lutheran, Anglican, RCC, Eastern Orthodox for example)

So the attempts to resurrect the failed argument -- simply flounder under the weight of their own self-contradicting example.

That argument is exposed as being even more outlandish and extreme when you note as on this thread that their solution to rejecting commonly ACCEPTED infallible sources (scripture) -- is to appeal to clearly DISPUTED and clearly FALLIBLE sources (man-made-traditioin and ECF explanations)! Clearly a point where reason failed for them.

Let the reader be informed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Point of clarifcation --

This thread is actually NOT on "ways to attack sola-scriptura" rather it is on the issue of Justification vs works and closely related -- the arguments that warnings in scripture (against losing salvation) that focus on works can be used to biblically prove the correct relationship between works and justification.

Doubting Thomas did a very good job of making a sola scriptura argument for that point. I can not refute that in the least.

The BEND of this thread to the sola scriptura discussion came when I pointed to the logical fact that D.T's convincing argument was only effective to the degree that it used an ACCEPTED and INFALLIBLE source (scripture) to make his arguments. He was infact using a sola scriptura argument to be "as effective as he clearly was". His arguments were devastating precisely BECAUSE he could use the infallible commonly accepted source of scripture to make his case.

How much LESS effective would he have been in that discussion IF he had argued nothing more than -

"I reject the bible arguments of those who oppose my position on justification because my favorite ECF told me to -- and I am not giving Bible arguments here because they are even less convincing for those who oppose my views than this focused appeal to an ECF"!!

How obvious that D.T clearly understood that point as he made his very effective case!

Come on people -- why is this simple stuff so hard for Christians at times??! It is embarrasing!

This point is one everyone sees but now D.T and A.D have to "pretend" not to notice??? How convincing is that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Proof texts are being thrown back and forth here, but the contexts are not always being taken into account. We can't just snatch a verse that LOOKS like it supports our views and ignore what's being discussed around it.

The context of both Romans 2 and James 2 are people who JUDGE others (Rom.2:1; 2:2-4, 11). We read these apostles' instructions on works, and think that they are speaking to free-wheeling antinomian licentists, but these were Jews and perhaps also former gentile proselytes who actually boasted in the Law and tried to judge others with it; deeming themselves "religious". (Rom.2:17, 18-19, James 1:26). What we see is that they omitted other parts of the Law, and thought they were still justified by their faith. That's similar to the view that if we sin and ask for forgiveness and try to do better, then and only then will "faith" save us!
But as Paul says in Galatians, if you try to justify yourself by the Law, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law.
And people fail to realize that God demands perfection. Does anyone really think he has repented and asked forgiveness for every single sin he has ever committed after conversion? Then we really do not know God's definition of sin! (Matt.5) Of course, then, we will fall back on "OK, God will forgive sins done in ingorance". Just like the "baptism of desire" argument, we deny a spiritual application of "grace" and insist on physical deeds imparting salvation, but when circumstances don't allow this, THEN we allow God to step in with grace IN SPITE OF our actual works! THIS is precisely what Paul and James are condemning! Again, if you pledge to justify yourself by works, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law; none of this "God will excuse it in this circumstance if I'm at least trying my best and asking forgiveness".
And DT, you keep saying all references to the Law are only about the OT Law, so it is some new NT "law" of "working in love" that now saves. But then what do you think all of these "works of love" are, but the LAW! The good works discussed are mostly abstinence from the evil works condemned in both testaments. The only part of the Law that has passed is the ceremonial aspect. So to make this "OT does not justify, but NT Law IS what justifies instead" distinction; then it is only a matter of exchanging one set of ritual for another. Otherwise, everything is completely the same as in the OT. Look right here in Romans (v25): if they actually kept the whole Law; their "circumcision" WOULD actually avail after all! Christ would not even be needed! That's also what verses 7-9 should be understood in regard to. (and recall 2Pet.2:15,16. You can't just grab his verses like that and pit them against other scriptures that have been given). He is telling you like he tells you in Galatians what "works' are required to be saved. They are trying to justify themselves that way, and so this is what how they should be performing. But they are not performing that way, so they have good reason to fear!

No, love is the MOTIVATION for us keeping the commandments, rather than the self-centered motivation of fear—making it to Heaven and escaping Hell. All of this is why Heb. 4 says that it is the person who does "NOT" work, but rather RESTS in Christ. It is not simply exchanging circumcision for baptism, and a bloody animal sacrifice for one that is made to look like bread and wine. For then we are left in the same bind: that our works were NOT perfect and therefore not good enough!
TRUE love CASTS OUT fear! He who FEARS is NOT made perfect in love! (1 John 4:18) This means that all those other verses telling people to fear are being misunderstood, or taken out of context. Most of them are addressing people trusting in the Law, and ignoring the sins they still commit, as discussed above. Romans 11 is comparing the national groups of Gentiles vs. Jews. Now, if we reject the Augustinian misuse of chapter 9 to teach the individuals rather than nations being "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"; then why are we doing the same exact thing with chapter 11? If those Gentiles did the same things as the Jews— trust in their own works and ignore their sins, He could turn away from them just like He turned away from Israel.

Also, another common misunderstanding is that "walk in the spirit" means "doing good works", and "walk in the flesh" means "sinning". This is also based on taking "sin willfully" and "Trampling underfoot the blood of the Son of God". But again, if "sinning willfully" is "trampling underfoot" the Blood, then everyone is lost. So then, we change it to "living in sin", lie in sinning beyond an "allowable" it to be excused as ignorant or an honest mistake or whatever. We don't even know where to draw the "line". I used to think this as well (and it was hardly helped me through fear to never do something wrong willfully). But if you look at the rest of Paul's usage of "flesh"; it is talking about the national inheritance the Jews were trusting in. So again, this is talking about trusting and boasting in the Law. Again, if you trust in the Law, it does not justify; but only exposes your sin. Man by nature is predisposed to commit those acts. A person rejecting Christ's righteousness, and trying to justify himself through the Law; though he might look righteous on the outside; still commits these acts (even though covered up, hidden, denied, excuses made, etc). This is why Paul says "the works of the flesh are these...", and then lists several sins. Because as Paul even says in Rom.2:1, 21-22, the one judging someone else; thinking he is keeping it, is the one more likely who "does the same things". See also John 7:19 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law?" This is basically what happens with all these groups including Catholicism, where all the people are taught to try to do "good enough" so (maybe!) they can "make it" to Heaven. They see how hard it is, and then they become the ones to give up and live in all sort of sin, figuring God will excuse them, for the efforts they do make. They can't stay with one partner and be faithful for life, they can't love their neighbor as themselves; they lie, steal, cheat, kill, greed, hedonism, etc. they try to get the Church to change its teachings on abortion and homosexuality. Yet they still baptize their babies, take communion, cross their chests when passing a church, all that stuff Agnus mentioned regarding the prayers, and accept their church's belief in working for their salvation, and hopefully, God will "weigh" their good and bad at the judgement, and their "Faith through works" will get them in. Whichever type of Catholic church; whether it aims to teach some "currency" concept; that's what it always devolves into in practice. THIS is what Paul, James and Jesus are condemning! Great irony, isn't it?

Just think, what act really tramples the blood? What is the biggest slap in the face you could give to Christ? To claim to accept His blood's covering, and then think you are actually gaining justification by your own works, which are not even perfect. Look at the rest of the verse: "...and counted the blood of the covenant, by which you were sanctified an unholy thing, and have done despite unto the Spirit of grace". "Despite" means to treat insultingly, with contumely" (en, intensive, hubrizo, "to insult;" some connect it with huper, "above, over," Lat. super, which suggests the insulting disdain of one who considers himself superior), Notes: (1) Hubrizo, "to insult, act with insolence," is translated "to use despitefully" in Act 14:5, AV; RV, "to entreat ... shamefully." See (ENTREAT) SHAMEFULLY, (ENTREAT) SPITEFULLY, REPROACH. Committing a sin, or whatever amount of sins after conversion is not that. If He forgave all your sins before, then any other sins committed afterward, the blood can handle! What this is talking about, are those who completely RENOUNCE the Blood after claiming to accept it, and go back to self-justification to the Law. This we saw also in John 8, where Jesus tells some of the same Jews who "believed in Him" that they were of their father the devil, and then they eventually try to stone Him. Nobody here is claiming that is saving faith. Yet, in a sense, they were "sanctified". Sanctification can also mean "to separate from profane things and dedicate to God; dedicate people to God". A person can be "separated" or "dedicated" (passive) to God, yet still not have a saving faith. That described much of Israel. And several of them who "accepted" Christ, for the wrong reason, and then their true motives were exposed by Him. While Sanctification is supposed to produce the other definition, "to be venerable or hallow", it is not a state of us working our way to goodness; for then that lowers God's standards, and claims our imperfect works are what make us holy and grant us entry into Heaven.

DHK; in passing, you every now and then mention Origen as the father of Arianism. While there may be truth to that; he is actually regarded as more the father of "orthodox" Athanasianism (the view accepted by Nicaea). Before Nicaea, the concept of the individual self-conscious "personhood" of the pre-existent Christ was not as well worked out as it became later. The orthodox still regarded Christ as being projected from the Father (like a light ray from its source), usually at birth. It was Origen, with his view of the preexistence of all souls (with Christ being the only one that did not fall), that really inspired the later Alexandrian school, from which Athanasius came. (I think I read that Athanasius may have even been a pupil of Origen!) Both Atanasius and Arius would draw from this, and the debate between them was simply whether Christ was created, or eternally divine. This is all covered well in Kelley's "Early Christian Doctrines".

 

1. While it is true that you can not "save yourself" by law-keeping as Paul points out in Romans 3 and in Gal 3 -- that is NOT the point he is making in Romans 2 (or Romans 6 or Romans 8 or Romans 11). In other words each chapter has it's own subject to address -- no way to wash over all chapters with one subject.

2. There is no exegetically sound way to retranslate "walking in the flesh" as statement that only applies to Jews who are hoping for national inheritance. The stretch and bend of the text required for such a goal is abuse beyond what the text can possibly tolerate.

In short -- you have a lot of good topics -- pick 2 or 3 and start two or three threads.

Maybe a thread on Romans 2 would be fun using the Romans 2 part of your post as the starter.

Go for it -- I will join.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Except that the ECFs to whom DT referred lived before the alleged 'invention' of the RCC (I presume you believe Constantine founded it?)

Yes, but what's the point of this 'soul liberty' of it causes the kind of epistemological contradictions and chaos to which Agnus alluded (and which your post fails to address)?

And on what basis do you claim this inffliable interpretation of that verse?
Would you like Charles Taze Russell to interpret your Scripture for you too. Why not? What is the difference. He is a man just like the men in your Tradition. [/quote] No. He is not within the Apostolic Tradition

And it does not work and is thus meaningless...which is why we need Apostolic Tradition:sleep:

 

Oh, a little word game, is it? Name-calling being the last refuge of those who have lost the argument and all that...

OK, here's one: so tell me, Mike, if Scripture alone is sufficient, how come God had to send Philip to explain the Scriptures to the Ethiopian eunuch?

 

For the same reason that God sent Mike to Matt to explain to Matt all about sola scriptura. :laugh:

 

I am not sure what your point is right here; but my point was quite clear. It doesn't matter whether one is speaking of the RCC or the ECF. The same argument holds true. One can take the writings of the ECF and easily demonstrate how they clearly not only contradict each other in doctrine, but more importantly contradict the Bible itself. Thus are standard is not sola ECF, but sola scriptura.

You, along with others that are in the RCC camp (though you be not Catholic) refuse to look solely at the Evangelicals, which I tried to point out in a round about way in my previous post. Let's consider some facts:
Islam is supposed to be a very unified religion. But in Islam there are more than 87 differing sects, even though there is just one Koran.
Why does that matter?
Because in Catholicism, the assertion is made that they are one, unified under one catechism. And yet within Catholicism there are many sects, possibly too numerous too count. They continue to diversify once you get into the third world countries where the RCC becomes somewhat like a chameleon taking in some of the native pagan customs to accomodate itself to the culture. It never has been a Christian church and never will be.

And yet this somewhat silly assertion is made that the Evangelicals have a very different doctrine, when in truth they are more united in their message, their beliefs, then the various groups of Catholics are. This fact the RCC would like to hide, and will protest against. But it is true.

If you don't like the way that I explained the verse, then you give your explanation, and we will go from there. That is where soul liberty comes in. You can leave Russel out of it. We don't need him, and we don't need the ECF to discuss one verse of Scripture. Give your reasons for your interpretation of John 16:13, if it differs from what I have said.

The same reason I wouldn't go to the ECF.

There is no such thing as "Apostolic Tradition." What is inspired in the Bible, and that is our only authority. Beyond that you have your fables, revised histories, re-interpreted dogmas, and so on. I recently read an article from a Muslim. It is a letter to the editor of an Islamic newspaper in response to the need of more Muslim-Christian dialogue. Here are some of his interesting points of history that he uses to make his point (that we don't need such dialogue)

Now we can be like the above Muslim "historian" and accept his point of view, or like the Catholic historian and accept his point of view. But I would rather go to the Bible and find out the truth for myself. Apostolic Tradition in this light becomes meaningless.

 

Then you're admitting that the sola Scriptura approach of "me, Jesus and my Bible" is insufficient...

 

That really depends on you. And I am making no judgement about you spiritually.
But with Philip and the Eunuch, the Eunuch was not saved. Here is what the Bible says about such a situation:

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.

It was impossible for the Ethiopian eunuch to understand the Scriptures for he wasn't saved. "He receives no the things of the Spirit of God...they are foolishness unto him."

Thus when Philip came the Eunuch had to ask Philip what this passage in Isaiah meant for he didn't understand. He did not have the Holy Spirit to give him any illumination on the subject. But Philip was able to start at the same Scripture and preach unto him Jesus. What a difference it makes to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit!

 

The point to which I was alluding was this: most of the sola camp here seem to assert that Constantine is some way 'founded' the RCC and that it all went horribly wrong from about then until 1517 or even later; whereas I'm saying that many of the ECFs existed before Constantine and yet are being dismissed as being associated with the RCC. So my question is: did the RCC exist before or after Constantine?

Explain, then, the 'agreement' between Calvinists and Arminians, between cessationists and charismatics, between covenantists and dispensationalists, between pre-. post- and a-millenialists etc - all claiming sola Scriptura but all contradicting each other

Very well. Jesus was talking to the Apostles. He said that He would send them the Holy Spirit and He would guide them into all Truth. Nore that He didn't say that the HS would guide all believers into all Truth, nor did He say that He would leave them Holy Scripture to guide them into all Truth, nor that the HS would cause them to pen that Holy Scripture and that that would be 'all Truth'. So, this was a promise peculiar and particular to the Apostles - and, the Church has taught consistently, their successors, the Bishops. That is my take on this passage, for which you asked, but it is based on the Church's take on it.

A cursory glance at Church history would disabuse you of that notion.

And how do you interpret the Bible outwith Apostolic Tradition.

 

Yes, indeed. But that's really my point - without the HS given to and through the Church (see my last post for my rationale for that interpretation), there can be no proper expounding of Scripture.

 

You assumed right the first time--the RCC existed from the time of Constantine onward. I prefer to take that historical approach. They are associated with the RCC many times because the RCC claims them for the source of their doctrine, even though I believe they misinterpret the gist of what they are saying.

All these disagreements you not only can find between denominations but between Baptists themselves. Check out the different threads--particularly the Baptist theology and General Baptist Discussion threads. It is no great theological difference whether or not spiritual gifts actually ceased or not. The more important matter is how they are used today, if indeed they are the genuine gifts that are present. The Charismatics present to us quite a large umbrella under which "The Third Wave" falls, as well as the old time Pentecostal--both of which are very different in their theology. For example Benny Hinn is a heretic and we would in no way associate with him though he be under this umbrella. He denies the trinity, the atonement, and some basic orthodox doctrines of the Bible, pretending himself to be a leader of Christianity.
On the other hand there some Pentecostal churches, some Full Gospel Assemblies, that still preach the old fashioned gospel to this day. The fact that they all fall under this one all-inclusive umbrella of "Charismatic" is unfortunate. One has to be very discerning in this area. The key word is "evangelical." Which churches still preach that old fashioned gospel--Jesus saves! --the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--his blood and his blood alone can save and that by faith alone. Evangelicals are united on this basic message. Many of the other things that you mention are simply "peripherals" that we can agree to disagree on" and in most cases we do and have sweet fellowship one with another.

Let's stop here and see what he did say:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Perhaps your statement was a bit ambiguous the way that it was written. But I am making sure that we agree that it is the Holy Spirit that is the subject here, and He is the one who is promised that will guide them into all truth.

True.

This is false. And nowhere in Scripture can you read into Scripture, demonstrate from Scripture, that there was a succession of bishops or a succession of anything--baptisms, churches, pastors, popes, bishops, etc. There are no successions taught anywhere in the Bible. Search as you may it is not there. This is where the teachings of man have superceded the teachings of God; that very thing that Christ himself condemned in Matthew:

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

As I gave you an example of church history; which one are you going to believe--the Islamic version? I would rather believe the Bible which does not teach successionism at all.