i of ii
DHK,
No, I do not care what kind of numbers "you" drum up. Why? Because you are appealing to Sola Scriptura. Therefore, your numbers have no bearing on the validity of your doctrine. This is why little churches like Westboro Baptist can be way off the mark when it comes to doctrine and an application of Biblical principle according to somebody like Al Mohler, for example, yet still remain beyond correction of any kind. Numbers simply don't matter to someone who claims Sola Scriptura. This is why my Baptist friend's friend who rejects "Faith Alone" and anything St. Paul wrote is utterly convinced of his position despite the fact that he and probably less than four people on the face of the Earth agree on these matters. So it is that, as I've been saying "Sola Scriptura" guarantees nothing. In fact, it convicts when a person's right and it convicts when a person's wrong. I on the other hand have a basis for appeal to numbers. Why? Because I am not appealing to the unBiblical doctrine of SS but to the Catholic Church, the one Jesus Christ established which covers the Earth. That Church is global and its number of members is one (of the many things) which plays a certain role in attesting to its validity. To use a Biblical image, Christ said the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed: "Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches." In a similar way, we see that Christ's Gospel took root in human society itself and grew to a great Church in the New Covenant in His Blood. So it is that the success of the Catholic Church (in terms of its flourishing of faith despite the problems that accompany any institution) represent the presence of the Holy Spirit working in her.
It teaches what it says. I am not the one making it out to contradict other Scriptures. For I do not hold to a hermeneutic which allows such a things on account of the "one mouth" through which Tradition and Scripture speak within Christ's Church, the provision the He instituted like a Great Ark for the maintenance of the Gospel over the course of centuries. Indeed, the Ark of Noah is an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church which would one day be established by God not for the protection from dangerous waters, but from sin.
Faith "alone" isn't supported by this text. Faith is. But to attempt to scrub the face off of one side of a coin to gain some sort of theological upper hand by championing the image on the other side of the coin is to do something senseless. This is why elsewhere St. Paul says "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." There in that passage St. Paul describes both sides of the coin, the faith and the love which, as two graces from God, cannot be wrenched apart from one another for the sake of the maintenance of one's basis for self-security. Also, as I cited earlier, 1st Corinthians 13:3 states "...and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Here again he affirms the necessary love which must be seen as essential to the faith life and anything but seperable from it for the sake, of all things, of a novel doctrine. And there are other passages like these which support the Catholic position, which is the position of Christ's Church zealously guarding the proper reading of Scripture as it's been handed down.
Grace alone? Yes. Christ alone? Yes? Faith alone? No.
So consider it this way: That passage is addressing the question of performing works of the law precisely for the purposes of the merit they represented. St. Paul puts the question to rest by clearly affirming the idea that we can't "earn" our salvation, period. We receive faith by grace. That faith, though, being something which has enlivened us, can't be seen as something which can then just sit there. With it comes with a share in the Christ life. We become animated as new creatures in Him. If we are now in Christ, how could we avoid performing acts of charity? So to properly read the text you've cited, you must see that St. Paul is speaking of works of the law or legalistic works people imagine as somehow meritorious in the "earning something for myself" sense of the word. This is why no man should boast. But notice, you said faith "alone" while St. Paul's words don't say that. And in Romans 3:28, when Martin Luther placed that word in the text when it was not found in the source text from which he translated, he basically made the same argument as you're making. The bottom line though is that while Luther actually added the word to his translation that was published, you're practically carrying on under the presumption that you're right. But you haven't proven that your inference is justified by either the text or St. Paul's broader theology. And in light of James 2:24, which is very clear, it is your understanding of this text which should be adjusted to match James 2:24 and not the other way around. For you have denied the clear and direct fact of James 2:24 for the sake of your inference concerning St. Paul's meaning here in Ephesians. This isn't letting Scripture interpret Scripture. This is preferring one reading of Scripture over another and then dismissing the clear, direct, and unambiguous text of another Scripture for the sake of the maintenance of one's preferred doctrine. So it is that you uphold every word of Scripture and leave it as your final and ultimate authority except for when you don't.
This passage is talking about "believing" upon the Lord. This passage doesn't say a single word about your conception of the doctrine of Faith Alone. Christians read this passage for 1,500 years without thinking "Oh, this teaches faith alone!" We believe upon the Lord. That entails a host of things. But it doesn't entail your preferred doctrine.
Notice what you did here. The Scripture says "whosoever believeth in him" and you translate that as "Whosoever has faith in Him and faith alone..." Do you see what you're doing? The Bible did not say what you just said it did. Again, you hold to the words of Scripture as your ultimate authority except for when you don't. Just as is the case with the word "alone" or "only" and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, so you continue to read those words into these texts to uphold your other preferred doctrine. I used to do the same thing, until I recognized that the Scriptures weren't actually teaching what I had been taught.
But I do care about the entirety of Scripture and I have pondered these things. I started out agreeing entirely with the quote often attributed to Martin Luther where he allegedly said that this doctrine is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls. I have pondered the Scriptural verses as they're written and in my heart and mind. And I allow the light of clear and unambiguous passages to shine upon the less clear passages. So it is that I accept James 2:24 at face value and understand St. Paul's references to "works" in Ephesians 2:8-9 as works by which someone would seek to justify himself by adherence to "works of the law." Whereas, your reading violates one (James 2:24) for the sake of the other, the reading I am presenting violates neither, but brings them to harmony. It is you who is suggesting that James 2:24 violates the totality of Scripture. Indeed, for you it does. Therefore, you just ditch it and make it out to "teach" the precise opposite of what it flatly states.
Vicar of Jesus Christ?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by steaver, Sep 23, 2015.
Page 13 of 30
-
ii of ii
Thanks, DHK, for your time,
Herbert -
steaver,
But this is how I see your statement: I see your holding to Trinitarian theology as your having retained a very fundamental aspect of Orthodoxy. GK Chesterton, an adult convert to Catholicism once said this: "In all probability, all that is best in Protestantism will only survive in Catholicism; and in that sense all Catholics will still be Puritans when all Puritans are Pagans."
What we Catholics believe is that all of Christ's truths come to us through the Church of which He is the Head. So where you hold to Trinitarian theology, you hold to a truth of the Catholic Church which was always taught universally as an apostolic doctrine. On the other hand, there are those areas where you have (that is, assuming you're not a Catholic) lost some element or component of the genuine orthodox Christian faith. Again, a Catholic holds to this view because the Church is that one provison on Earth which was instituted by Christ as the principle of unity of faith, sacraments, and Christian governance. The Bible "alone," however, has no such divine sanction.
Also, look at what the Catechism teaches about the initial grace of justification:
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.
1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification...
Elsewhere we find:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.
There have been times in the Church's history, indeed, even among the Apostles, when the paradox of God's love and exclusivity have caused problems. But the Church, though it strives to uphold the Gospel, has grown in self-understanding in various ways according to the principle of the Development of Doctrine (something about which John Henry Newman wrote quite nicely).
Does that sound fairly reasonable to you? If not, why not?
Herbert -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yet earlier, in a post to me, you said you believed in salvation by grace alone. Rolleyes -
Robots don't need "help" they need "better programming".
Free will - intelligent life forms like People need "help" -
John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN - received Him not" -- which can only happen in a free-will model. Because there is no such thing as the robot-maker reprogramming the robot - but then the robot still does not work -- unless the maker is defective.
-
Rom 10
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. -
-
Churches like Westoboro are off the mark because of sin, not sola scriptura.
They have not rightly divided the Word of Truth (2Tim.2:15), have gone down the wrong path, and have come to false conclusions concerning God:
1. The Catholic Church is not the true church.
2. The Catholic Church was not established by Jesus Christ.
3. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the teaching of Christ not in agreement with it.
How can you say the things you say; assume the things you assume when all the evidence is to the contrary. This is why sola scriptura is so important. The Bible provides the evidence that the doctrines and teachings of the RCC are absolutely wrong. One by one they can be listed and shown to be not only man's invention but anti-biblical. How then can it be Christ's Church? Impossible!
Christ's Church would not be involved in one sex scandal after another.
Christ's Church would not be involved in pedophilia and homosexuality.
Christ's Church would not be involved in the persecution and murder of millions (middle ages).
Christ's Church today would not be in perpetual decline selling off church property to pay for legal bills and because of poor attendance. But yet you call this "Christ's Church"
Percentage of US Catholics drops and Catholicism is losing members faster than any denomination.
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/...-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/
In the years since World War II there has been a substantial reduction in the number of priests per capita in the Catholic Church, a phenomenon considered by many to constitute a "shortage" in the number of priests.
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/vicar-of-jesus-christ.96127/page-13
An Honest Look at Catholicism’s Decline
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2015/01/an-honest-look-at-catholicisms-decline/
These headlines are everywhere. It is not "Christ's Church." It is a business organization that is run by man, a religious organization, one of the largest in the world, whose "Deposit of Faith" is contrary to what the Word of God states.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
--But he left only condemnation for the traditions of men. -
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--Salvation is not by works. It is by the one who does not works but simply believes or has faith.
It is a contrast between works and faith. He that worketh not, that is does no works.
Rather, he that believes (believes alone without works) is justified. How can it mean anything else but faith alone? It plainly denies works. Read the entire chapter.
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
--Abraham could not use his works to bring glory to God. What brought glory to God?
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--His faith! He believed God. That belief or faith is what justified him. There were no works involved. Then Paul states the verse I quoted to you.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith..."
The woman with an issue of blood followed Jesus thinking if only I can touch the hem of His garment I shall be healed. And so she did. Jesus turned and said: "O woman, great is thy faith. and she was immediately. She had confidence that Christ, the Great Healer, could heal her, and expressed her faith by touching his garment.
A Roman centurion asked Christ to heal his daughter. He exercised faith unlike others in that he told Christ He could do it from where he was and not to bother to come all the way to his house. Jesus told all that stood around him that this man had more faith than all that were in Israel. He put his faith or confidence in Christ as the Great Healer.
For by grace are you saved through faith.
Through faith (and that not of yourself) That means faith alone.
Through faith (it is the gift of God), not something you can work for. A gift is free.
Through faith (not of works) Very clear. It is not of works.
Through faith (not of works lest any man should boast. Paul emphasizes it all here by saying that if one would think that their works (of any kind) should think they could earn salvation, then they would have something to boast about. But they don't. Jesus paid it all.
--It is through faith and faith alone. There is enough evidence there to convince anyone of "faith alone."
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
--This is an obvious verse which says "faith alone." Why don't you accept it? It has nothing to do with Luther. Nothing was added.
Here is the Geneva translation of the same verse which was translated also in the 16th century ca. 1560, a translation that Luther had nothing to do with:
(Geneva) Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Lawe.
Strong's concordance states:
πιστεύω, pisteuō, pist-yoo'-o
From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
--Thus the verse is speaking of "faith alone." That is all it is speaking of: "faith" and nothing else.
The Bible doesn't have to say it "your way." The faith "alone," is understood.
When a guest comes to my house and I say, gesturing to a chair, "Please have a seat," you want me to say: "Please have a seat here and only here," when the obvious is understood.
-
In Central America, there is an active effort among non-Catholic Christians to evangelize and, to their credit, the non-Catholic Christian missionaries are doing a better job at recruiting new Christians in Central America than the Catholic Church is.
In the Western World; America and Western Europe, the Church is "struggling" to expand because so much of secular Western values are opposed to the Church. However, most of the Baptist churches in my area are over 2/3 empty on Sunday. The Catholic Churches are packed at every mass and new churches are being built all over our state.
Again, over all the Catholic Church is growing faster than any other church but you ignore those statistics There will always be places in the world where the Church's growth is stunted for one reason or another, but there are always going to be regions that welcome the Church with open arms.
As far as the sex abuse, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There is plenty of evidence that Baptist pastors have been diddling kids for years and their churches have covered it up. It happened in my Baptist church and it took the local press exposing the lies told by the leadership of the church to finally get the members of the congregation to act to bring about the removal of both the pastor and the youth minister who both ended up in jail.
http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm -
So the fact that the help is "free and undeserved" is inconsequential? That's not how I read and understand this passage.
Further, the word "help" doesn't denote autonomy or independent activity which originates in the self. To help simply means to provide assistance. In this case the assistance is the thing that effects the result, namely our "move" toward God. Imagine a person helplessly stuck at the bottom of a pit, tied up and bound and incapable of climbing out. If, though gagged, he offered a muffled cry for help, and someone above heard him and said "I'll help you!" would this mean that the guy tied up in the pit was actually about to get out on his own? Most certainly not. Further, after the victim was saved from his ordeal and he met up with his friends he might say "Oh my! I was gagged, bound, and cast into a pit. Thank the Lord, someone heard me crying and helped me! He climbed down into the pit with a rope, unbound me, and helped me out! I am so thankful!" Would his friends say "Wait a minute here, he 'helped' you get out of the pit? Think again, bro! Use a better word there why don't you?"
The particular word choice is, again, completely consistent with the theology presented here. For what the Catechism teaches here is that man is incapable of moving toward God. He, therefore, "moves" us by His grace toward Himself. He doesn't destroy our nature in so doing, however. That is, He doesn't unilaterally force Himself upon us, thus rendering us automatons. His grace perfects our nature, which, according to the order of Creation, was oriented toward Him but was broken and ruptured on account of the Fall. So he calls us to repent. Incidentally, because of sin, that is something we cannot do. Therefore, he "assists" us in doing that which we could not even begin to do on our own but according to which we are rightly ordered by His divine act of Creation.
Consider it this way, the fact that we are "helped" doesn't mean we're operating on our own steam. The fact that the help is "gree and undeserved" is itself significant. Further light is shed on the Church's teaching in the Catechism, paragraph 1987, which reads "The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man." This paragraph demonstrates the fact that man's movement toward God is itself a thing brought about by his free and gratuitous grace. So when Christ calls us to repentance, we certainly do so "but not according to our own power." Rather, we are "moved by grace" toward him and thus achieve a state we'd not be able to attain without this initial grace of justification, which although you don't approve of the word "help" being used, is still a clear teaching which indicates the fact that man is extricated from a position entirely by a prevenient grace which does not originate in Him. That is, something that couldn't respond or move on its own is being moved as, in itself, an act of grace. So my statement that we are saved by Grace Alone stands. For without God's initial justification, itself effected by a gratuitous, free, and prevenient grace, we would still be sitting there in our sins and would not move at all. So indeed, we are saved by grace alone.
Thanks,
Herbert -
Thank you, Walter.
Herbert -
Projected growth rate for the RCC through 2050 is expected to about half of what it was from 1980 to today.
"Europe has only 23 per cent of the global Catholic population, but has more parishes than the rest of the world combined (55 per cent) "
====================================================
from - http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ft.happening.in.the.catholic.church/55152.htm
CARA projects that the number of Catholics will continue to grow, but not at quite the same levels as seen in the last 35 years. They estimate that the Catholic population will increase by another 372 million by 2050, or 29 per cent.
A concern for the future is that while the size of the flock has grown, overall there has been a 17 per cent decline in the number of priests. In total in 2012 there were 393,053 priests for the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.
Both priests and parishes (church buildings) are unevenly distributed globally, with higher numbers in the regions seeing least growth. Europe has only 23 per cent of the global Catholic population, but has more parishes than the rest of the world combined (55 per cent) – even though the number of parishes in Europe has decreased by 12 per cent. Regular church attendance is higher in Africa too, with about 70 per cent of Catholics attending Mass weekly, compared to 20 per cent in Europe.
Europe also has one diocesan priest for every 2,597 Catholics compared one to 7,223 in Africa. But while Africa and Asia have a healthy number of men becoming priests (numbers have more than doubled on both continents), Europe and the Americas struggle to keep up with the number lost through death or defection each year.
"A growing phenomenon within the Church is the use of African and Asian priests in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere where there are too few native priests to staff parishes," the report said.
===================================
Christianity Today reported last year that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.
The SDA church has grown by 400% since 1980. The RCC has grown 57% since then. -
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Either something is 'all of grace' or it isn't. If it isn't, then it is partly of grace.
'I waited patiently for the LORD; and He inclined His ear to me, and heard my cry. He also brought me up out of the horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet on a rock, and established my steps.
He has put a new song in my mouth- praise to our God' (Psalm 40:1-3). He does it all!
So according to the Church of Rome,
It's not Grace Alone, because I have to finish what grace starts.
It's not Faith Alone, because I have to have works as well.
It's not Christ Alone, because you are 'born again' at your baptism and are dependant on the 'sacraments'.
It's not Scripture Alone, because we have our traditions.
It's not to the Glory of God Alone, because if I have to do something and the Church has to do something, we have to get part of the glory.
But the word of God says something different:
'For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
But when the kindness and the love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us [He didn't 'help' us; He saved us] through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been justified by grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Grace alone, Faith Alone, Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.
-
You may not accept the position of Catholics in this regard. But it is consistent, reasonable, and consistent with the Scriptures. Since I cannot direct to you non-reference apologetical works b/c of the forum's restrictions, I will try to represent what Catholic writers say in response to an interpretation such as yours to James 2:24:
Catholics see two categories with regard to faith:
1) The faith of Galations 5:6- St. Paul's faith working through charity or "faith formed by charity" according to the phrasing of some writers.
2) There's also faith which is not formed by charity. James 2:19, for example, would be an example of faith NOT formed by charity.
Therefore, with certain qualifications, a Catholic can say we're saved by faith (That is, as long as the faith referred to isn't divorced from Christ's charity).
In order to really engage the Catholic position, you'll have to demonstrate that these two categories I've presented are themselves illegitimate for some reason or another. This, as I see it, will be impossible to do in light of Matthew 25:31-46 and 1st Corinthians 13:2 and other verses. For where a Catholic can reconcile those verses with Ephesians 2:8-9 as well as James 2:24, one who demands that faith alone is how things are done cannot do so without doing what you're doing: Denying the bald pronouncement of James 2:24.
Thanks,
Herbert -
Martin,
I am going to be tied up for the next few days so I wanted to get this in yet tonight. Pardon me for my upcoming absence. God willing, I'll be back, though!
In this case, it seems as though you're presenting things in zero-sum terms. To present something in zero-sum terms without having first demonstrated the zero-sum conditions of the situation is to commit a logical fallacy. I reject your Either-Or fallacy. For in God's economy, things more often operate according to a Both-And dynamic. Today is the Solemnity of the Annunciation, which provides a good case in point for my position. In the case of Christ's Mother, Mary, the Angel Gabriel came and announced the plan God had in store for her. She responded, saying "Let it be done unto me according to your word." In other words, Mary said "yes" to God. For God wouldn't force Himself upon Mary. She co-operated with God. Can she "boast" for having done so? By no means. But did she really and actually express her will in harmony with the Divine will? Most definitely! Amen.
Similarly, we can participate in something that is already perfect when we are encountering a non-zero-sum situation. For it is according to the gracious participation in the divine life of God by which St. Paul wrote the following: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church..." It is only according to a non-zero-sum theology that such a statement can make any sense. We know that there was nothing lacking in the perfect sufferings of Christ. Still, by grace, St. Paul offers his sufferings up for the sake of the body.
To suggest, though, that this Psalm is more Baptist than Catholic or more in line with your theology is not really quite realistic. I'd say it's perfectly in line with the Catholic Faith.
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
God bless, Martin-
Herbert -
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
You say you won't violate Paul's exhortation. It seems you are misapplying this passage of Scripture for you are pitting Paul against John which is pitting Scripture against Scripture. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
Paul also wrote this for the Holy Spirit,..
1 Ti 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
2 Ti 4:2 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine".
Tit 1:13 "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;"
Tit 2:15 "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee".
Explain for me how you obey these exhortations to rebuke without exercising judgment of what a person is saying either for or against sound doctrine? Does not these exhortations calling for judgments to be made show that you must be taking 1 Corinthians 4:5 out of context? Scripture must be harmonized, we cannot favor some over the others, we must study to show ourselves approved and rightly divide the word of Truth.
So when the Scripture instructs us to "try the spirits" and gives us the measure by which we are to "try the spirits", how can you say you refuse the instruction given by God to try the spirits and invoke more Scripture as your defense for not obeying this Scripture?
So I ask you to examine your own position and judge for yourself whether or not you are being reasonable with your explanation as to why you will not judge whether or not a person is of God by their confession concerning Jesus Christ as John instructs us to do. -
Which is why I believe the "sola scriptura" topic would be useful rather than every-topic - and Herbert initially agreed with that. Yet oddly enough when we got to the point of looking at the details of how sola scriptura works - he decided not to pursue going into a discussion of how the Bible led him out of the Baptist church and into Catholicism.
Posting various Catholic Canons cannot be how Herbert read himself into the Catholic church - from the Bible.
Page 13 of 30