Vicar of Jesus Christ?

B of A+B

Only by committing a logical fallacy can one take this verse and understand it to mean that a private individual can, by virtue of the fact that he can read, determine whether someone is going to Hell or not.

Only by committing a logical fallacy can one take this verse and understand it to mean that a private individual can, by virtue of the fact that he can read, determine whether someone is going to Hell or not. Yes, indeed. "Rebuke with all authority." I don't have a problem saying "It is indeed a grave sin to support abortion." For I have it on the authority of Scripture and the very Church of Christ that abortion is a terrible evil. The same goes for contraception, drunkenness, fornication, unchastity, etc. Still, though, such acknowledgements aren't to be understood as free passes for the believer to determine which of his friends, enemies, and co-workers is going to Hell.

We're talking logic here, steaver. You've built up a straw man of your own creation. Now you're knocking it down. The whole process you're engaged in has nothing to do with me, my position, or the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning sin, judgment, or the rebuking of a sinner. I obey these exhortations on their terms, not the terms you're importing. I can judge sound doctrine according to the provision Christ instituted by which orthodoxy could be distinguished from heterodoxy: The Church He established on Pentecost. This is not a question of the identification of doctrine. This is a question which focuses upon the timing and meting out of God's divine justice. I don't know about you, but I prefer to leave that in God's Hands, despite the fact that I do indeed have a Bible which plays an indispensable role in the life of the Church.

The Bible is in complete harmony with itself. My position doesn't indicate otherwise. Again, the Bible is representative of God's authority. It doesn't represent His entrusting to me a role only fit for Him: that of Divine Judge. We're talking categories here, steaver. We are in the category of "creature." He's in the category of "Creator." There are things that come along with our creaturely role. One of them is deference. It is our place to respect God's place as ultimate Righteous Judge of all Creation. Don't let the philosophical traditions you've adopted or inherited convince you otherwise.

Only by committing a logical fallacy can one take this verse and understand it to mean that a private individual can, by virtue of the fact that he can read, determine whether someone is going to Hell or not.

As I said above, "I am right there with you saying 'Yes, they identify that there is an 'in' and an 'out.' What I won't do is violate St. Paul's exhortation there at the beginning of his first letter to the Corinthians which tells me, again to 'Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.' I refuse to presume to know who is and who is not saved." Is your problem with my refusal to damn people to Hell or do you see me as stopping short of identifying sinful behavior? If the former, you're right. I stop short of presuming to know anybody's eternal status. As for the former, though, I have Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, just as Christ established them, not just to identify what behaviors constitute sin, but also to distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truths of God.

Does that make sense? If not, why not?

Herb

 

Let me respond to this much as you have used this verse before. It is taken out of its context and thus is not making much sense. Perhaps it is to you, but the fourth chapter of 1Cor. is not speaking of salvation. Let's look at some of those verses:

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

In verse one Paul is identifying himself as an apostle. He is a "minister" or servant of Christ, and "stewards" (which means "dispensers") of the mysteries of God.
Weymouth's translation is:

1Co 4:1 As for us Apostles, let any one take this view of us--we are Christ's officers, and stewards of God's secret truths.
--This is one of those passages where Paul is defending himself as an apostle to the Corinthians. He does so many times throughout this epistle. They demand from him letters of recommendation; they don't believe he is qualified; they are judging him as to his qualifications as an a apostle. That is the context.

Paul responds:
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
--Here is the main qualification of not only an apostle but of any spiritual leader. Paul was both a servant and he was faithful. Were these false teachers servants, or did they just want the preeminence?

Thus he continues:
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
--He was not concerned about being judged by some false teacher. That was the least of his concerns. His responsibility was to God, not to them. He doesn't even judge himself in some matters. Perhaps he is referring to something like his thought life or some things that are entirely left between him and God alone that only God would judge when he appeared in the Judgment Seat of Christ. That is not about salvation. It is about rewards and the loss thereof.

In verse four he emphasizes the fact that it is God that judges.

Then in verse 5:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
--Remember he is speaking to the Corinthians, specifically addressing those who are false teachers that are judging him and questioning is authority as an apostle.
--Don't judge me now. Wait until Christ comes. He will bring to light ALL the hidden things of darkness. He will make open and declare the counsel that is on all the hearts. (For those who are false teachers attacking Paul this is a fearful thing).
Then Paul says. "Every man shall have praise of God."
If a man is not saved he will not have praise of God at that time. He won't even be there.
Their actions against Paul were despicable and unbecoming of believers.

What did Paul really say about judging? Just two chapters earlier he said:
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Jesus said:
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Thus for scriptural to meaningful it must be taken in the context in which it was written.

You are not logical here.
These are again a priori assumptions made by you without any evidence.
Scripture, yes. But tradition and the Magesterium were not established by Christ. They are the opinions of sinful men. Here is where you err. Whereas we can take the divine Word of God, read it, pray and ask for divine guidance and understanding, gain illumination from the Holy Spirit, and God gives us understanding from His Word.
You gain much of your understanding from sinful men. Only the Word of God is inspired of God. No other document is. Even if there are other writings (and there were) by some of the apostles, that are not contained in the Bible, they are not inspired. What is in today's canon of scripture is inspired of God, and that is all. That is why it is our authority. And that is why we believe is sola scriptura.

 

That is the only text in the Bible that uses the phrase "by faith alone" - however we have this in Romans 3 --

Rom 3
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Our obedience is the fruit of the Gospel not the cause of it.

(I am fairly confident you would agree to this point)

 

Hi, DHK-

I know what the context of St. Paul's statement is as I've read it carefully before. At the same time, though, I see the concept that I'm presenting as being nicely presented here. St. Paul, broadly speaking, presents a pretty universal concept when he says: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." In other words (and regardless of the particular context of any situation), mere men can't presume to know everything and should therefore await God's ultimate judgment. That's not a particularly complicated, specific, or controversial concept.

I don't agree. I think that certain Scriptural principles, though they're presented in one context or another, can and should be applied to other situations, in some cases, for example, here in my life in 2016. For example, if someone on the Baptist Board internet forum suggests that we mere individuals are in a position to determine what another person's eternal fate shall be, I think St. Paul's words fit nicely: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God."

Rather than stating your opinion, take a moment, instead to demonstrate what is illogical about what I've said.

I can take this assertion in one of two ways. On one hand, for my statements to be "a priori" assumptions, they would, by definition, be things "relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience." In other words, they would be things which can be recognized as logically deducible without appeal to personal experience or observation. On a certain level, then, I'd say "You're right!" On the other hand, it's more likely that you are claiming that I have presented some sort of fallacious argument which "occurs when someone decides ahead of time what the conclusion to an argument is, then only considers evidence that supports that conclusion, or twists what evidence there is to support the predetermined conclusion." In that case, seeing as how I was a Baptist who saw my Baptist beliefs as soundly Biblical and had no intention of "leaving" the Baptist faith that I'd inherited, then your assertion is manifestly false. I have already told you what I used to believe. I am now trying to share with you why my views had to be adjusted. This whole conversation is a demonstration of the fact that I am not operating in this way.

If I were to count, I imagine there would be about 20 or so times that you've said something like this. But you've yet to even attempt to actually demonstrate the truth of such an assertion. This is why I continue to say that you're begging the question. Merely saying "Christ didn't sanction Sacred Tradition or the Teaching Authority of His Church" doesn't make such an assessment true. So, again, you're presupposing the very things in question between us.

So you're saying that God won't rightly guide His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (the one who in community filled the vacant Apostolic Seat of Judas according to the explicit guidance of the Holy Spirit and met in Jerusalem to decide on the matter of the Gentiles and their relationship to the Law with a conscience-binding authority) because there are sinners in it, but He will most assuredly guide a whole host of private individuals with their Bibles who are also sinners (and who often disagree with one another- but not on "the essentials," things like Justification, the nature of Holy Communion, Ecclesiology, Church Discipline, the Trinity, Sacraments, Believer's Baptism vs. Paedobaptism, Monergism, Sunday worship, to name a few)?

 

However, to summarize this passage into one small "truth" as "judge nothing before the time," contradicts the rest of scripture. We are to judge.
Judge righteous judgment.
They that are spiritual judge all things.
The above is scripture, but in reality we judge all the time. We judge people, places things, prices, whether things are expensive or cheap.
We, in our minds judge people. We judge them by their weight, by their accent, by the way that we in our minds assess an individual. We make a judgment call. We have to. Making sound judgment, or discernment, is a part of life. Thus to say "Don't judge" goes directly against common sense and the Bible.

And that is precisely why we should not. It is not speaking of salvation. Judge nothing before the time refers to the Judgment Seat of Christ. Thus if the verse were to be applicable it could only be applicable in this way:
1. One must be referring to believers only--those in Christ.
2. One cannot be referring to their salvation. It is not a salvation passage.
3. One must be referring to service and reward.
4. Thus Judge nothing (what rewards one will have or not have) before Jesus comes. There is a time of reckoning this verse says, but it is speaking about Christians. Paul is speaking of himself, and Paul is not going to be standing before the Great White Throne Judgment fearing for his salvation. He is assured of his salvation.

He said:
2 Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

There is no logical connection between the magesterium and Christ. How can they be connected? It is an illogical giant leap of faith.

I was not referring to your Baptist background at all. From the definition you gave:
"rather than from observation or experience." You are simply stating an assumption "The Magesterium comes straight from Christ," without observation, without evidence, without any kind of proof whatsoever. Why would anyone say that? Why go there?
I was a Catholic. Now I ask myself why I ever believed those things in the first place!! They just don't make any logical sense.

Who is begging the question. As I have just said I was a Catholic for 20 years. Now I see the foolishness of the teaching.
It is like those that believe in Islam. Why does a suicide bomber believe he will go right to paradise when he dies or becomes a martyr for the cause of Islam. That is their teaching. What is the basis for believing it? There isn't any. It has to be taken by blind faith. You and I both know that their concept of paradise in not biblical and that a Muslim blowing himself up is not the way to heaven. Right? There is no logical connection there except for them to blindly believe the word of those that have taught them.

There is no logical connection between the Magesterium and Christ except to blindly accept what the RCC has taught their members. It is accepted by blind faith. There is no connection.
I don't have to prove my statement. The RCC claims the assertion. Since, as you state, "Christ sanctioned Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of His Church," you are the one (or the RCC), that must prove the statement. I can deny it all I want. I don't have to prove any thing. But you must prove your assertion to be true.
Where and how did Christ sanction Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of His Church in the RCC" This is not true and cannot be true unless it is absolutely demonstrated as true. I left Catholicism because of such anti-biblical statements and man-made teachings.

God did NOT guide the RCC in what you just described. He did guide in the early centuries churches of baptized believers that beliefs similar to those of Baptists today that constantly stood against the errors of those who have beliefs similar to Catholics of today. God will not guide any such organization as the RCC. He cannot. Its doctrines are contrary to his will.
The RCC did not start in Jerusalem, and did not start with the apostles.
One just does not find the doctrine of the RCC in the Bible.

That one essential doctrine that I often come back to:
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Without the new birth it is impossible to be saved; impossible to enter into the kingdom of God.
The RCC Catechism defines this all important doctrine as baptism and entrance into the RCC.
If they are so far out in left field on this so important and essential doctrine, how then can they be "God's Church"?

 

1 of 2 to Martin

Get ready for another really bad analogy. Maybe I'm floundering again! (Or maybe I just enjoy this kind of thought experiment and hope that you'll bear with me): Picture a locomotive. Now picture three or four rail cars attached to it. If there were some materials on one of the cars which were expected in the next town, once they arrived there, could someone say "I got these from the third rail car"? Sure. Someone could say that. In a sort of analogous way we've been made to be co-workers with God (as St. Paul put it in 1st Corinthians 3). Because although the rail car owed everything to the engine, the cause of its getting anywhere, and the car certainly didn't attach itself to the engine, still the rail car played its own unique role in the situation as far as its usefulness was concerned. So it is that salvation can be said to be all grace. But such a fact doesn't preclude human participation in God's economy precisely by the order of grace. Verses 3 & 4 of 2nd Peter 1 read as follows: "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So it is that everything comes through what He has given us. And that gift goes on to produce supernatural results culminating in our very participation in the divine life. So to go back to the train analogy. The engine does the work. The car, however, plays a role and "participates" in the delivery process according to the work done by the train as a system whose individual parts are all ordered to one task. The cars don't compete with the engine. It's not a zero-sum game. Now, I don't personally think that's either complicated, crazy, partly crazy, completely crazy, or even slightly controversial!

Let's revisit what I wrote: "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." In other words, though the Gabriel did announce what God had in store to her (Hence the word Annunciation), she expressed her humble submission to God's will. She put her will in harmony with the Divine Will. It's true then that, just as I said, the Angel Gabriel announced the plan to Mary. And she said "yes" to God. About the frustration of God's will: God allows things to happen which are bad. But He makes good even of the bad things we do. So if I sin, I don't attribute my sinful behavior to God for He neither sins nor causes man to sin. So as far as sin goes, it represents a big "frustration" to God. For He created Adam and Eve without sin. But according to their disobedience (which must have been frustrating for a loving Father), they sinned. But He is greater than sin. And that's why He permits it. And He came and atoned for the sins of Adam and Eve and all we who claim them as our first parents. Frustrating, indeed!

How do you know that it isn't you misunderstanding what St. Paul is saying? We could just volley this charge all day. But where does the authority lie? In St. Paul? I don't think so, for he's the very one you say I don't understand, which is, again, why Chesterton said that "You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement..." So no, Martin, it's you who doesn't understand Paul "No. It's you, Herbert." No. It's you, etc. etc. :^)

??? I am not sure how that's much different than what I was saying or what I was saying that St. Paul was saying. St. Paul's sufferings were, by the Apostle himself, understood as somehow conjoined with the sufferings of the Lord for the sake of His Body, the church. The way you worded that acknowledges as much. And Christ's persecution did not end when He passed from life on Good Friday. For there in Chapter 9, verses 4 & 5 we see Christ speaking of His continued persecution. For when Christian believers were persecuted, Christ bore their persecutions, in some mysterious way, even as the Risen Lord, according to this passage. So, yes, I agree "there is still more suffering to come." That wasn't the portion of the verse in question there. The part which has the profound and mysterious implications is the part about the union St. Paul understood to exist between his sufferings and those of the Lord for the sake of his body, which is the church.

I am 38. So I was 2 when you got married. May God continue to bless your marriage! Amen. As far as the alone remark goes, I wasn't suggesting anything about God's omnipotence, etc. God can do anything He wishes. And sometimes He does act alone, certainly. But even when He does, being three divine Persons who share one Nature, even when God acts alone, we encounter statements like this one: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And as far as the New Covenant in Christ's Blood goes, we are, again, made to be "participants" in God's divine nature. We are part of a royal priesthood in Christ. What is a priest but one who offers a sacrifice. And to refer to Malachi 1:11 again, we see there reference to a pure offering presented with incense to God from, of all people, the Gentiles. This pure offering is given from the rising of the Sun to its setting. Well, we know that no offering is truly pure, unless we're talking about Christ. So it is that Malachi 1:11 is a foretelling of the one Eucharistic Sacrifice, of the New Covenant in His Blood which would be pure, offered everywhere and always to His name.

 

2 of 2 to Martin

I am not sure, but it seems that you're implying that the Via Moderna represented orthodox Catholic teaching. Well, it didn't. It wasn't the Via Antiqua. The Via Moderna was inconsistent with Catholic Orthodoxy on some very important points and in some writers' minds represents one of the first cracks into which flowed the corrupting waters of secularism in the West.

Actually, the Church of Christ (which you call the Church of Rome, a reference to Romans 1:7, I'd guess) is to teach us. It tells us when we don't understand, not the other way around. Further, the Church's doctrines concerning the Eucharist are completely Biblical. And in order to understand the Lord's words there, one needn't just understand "the context all the way from verse 22." The reader needs to understand the context from Genesis to Revelation. The reader needs to understand the nature of the Paschal Mystery and of Christ's Paschal Sacrifice. The reader needs to understand the overwhelming and limitless divine love of God poured out for sinners. I think that may be just a little broader than "the context all the way from verse 22." One also needs to believe the words of Scripture as they're written and not according to strained un-interpretations which make phrases such as:
1) "This is my body" out to mean "This is not my body" or
2) "... A man is not justified by faith alone" to say "... A man is justified by faith alone" or
3) "He who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" to say "He who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is not guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

He is the eternal victim. You don't deny that, do you? What about that great Gospel classic which says "There's power, power, wonder-working power, in the Blood of the Lamb"? That is a very Catholic song. For it affirms an apostolic truth: The Lamb of God's sacrifice, being outside of time, is everpresent in eternity before the Father. No need do we have to "re-sacrifice" the Lord. Rather, His once, for all, sufficient Sacrifice of Calvary, by God's miraculous hand makes us contemporaries with the one Sacrifice of Calvary at Mass. For that one Sacrifice is made present there at the altar. Through the Sacrament, as your quote indicates, an individual priest acts in personae Christi, and thus, by God's power (not his own) effects the Sacrament for the sake of the His Body, the Church. Yes, He, the Lord, is truly present on the "altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man- not once, but a thousand times." But the re-presentation of one divine Sacrifice shouldn't be understood as a new or other sacrifice every time it's re-presented. Neither the quote above, nor the Catechism, nor any other authoritative document indicates as much. For God, being in charge of everything, can present to His people the one Sacrifice of Calvary as He sees fit. This doctrine, as the Scriptures record, comes directly from the lips of Christ as well as the testimony of St. Paul (Indeed, the whole New Testament is a lesson in Eucharistic Theology!).

In the New Testament, as you likely know, the term hiereus is used infrequently and is usually loaded with connotations associated with OT priests. The elders in the New Testament weren't just "respected" elders, either. There was much more to their authority than the mere respect due to an elder in the modern societal sense. Also, that "pretty much identical" you referred to, in the cases of Timothy and Titus, doesn't account for the unique authority they had to appoint elders (First Timothy 5, Titus 1). The Episkopos, then, as it does now, represents the fullness of the priesthood. And what's an overseer to you anyway, Martin? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you came to disagree with your pastor (presuming you're not your own pastor already) would you not, after some process, leave his care? Would you not see yourself as entirely justified in deserting him according to your convictions concerning the content of Scripture? When I was a Baptist, though I wasn't a fan of "Church-hopping" would have left if there was no way to get the pastor back on board. But such a situation reveals the way things have gotten backwards. We should look for the Church Christ established and then line up with it. We should not privately identify the doctrines we think are right according to our interpretation of the Scriptures and then look for a church which can exercise a symbolic authority over us. That's not a picture that is consistent with the Church as it's described in the New Testament. And if I could have left, or you could now leave your church on account of irreconcilable doctrinal differences, is he really your "elder" in the faith, and much less, your overseer? How does, again, Hebrews 13:17 work with that? So why even weigh words iike hiereus or presbyter when no matter how we evaluate them, they've little or nothing to do with the "ecclesial" structure of the typical Baptist Church. And further, is your faith not a private matter when it comes down to it? I've shared this with DHK already, but there is a saying I've heard which describes this problem. It goes like this: "When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." How would you respond to that in light of the term "presbyter" as it's actually understood in a New Testament context?

Blessings to you!

Herbert

 

DHK,

You keep saying the same things. I went through the Scriptures you and BobRyan presented for SS. Neither of you has responded to those with any substance.

I also responded to practically every paragraph in the Norm Geisler article you shared with me. You've not even begun to respond to what I've shared there, either.

Yet, you're here responding quite quickly to these more recent exchanges, some of which I'm having with other people. Either way, though, throughout this little journey you are simply not engaging with the points I am attempting to make. You are repeating the same things. That's not argumentation. And pasting Scripture, that's not argumentation, either.

Please realize that the Catholic perspective presumes not rupture but continuity from the Apostolic Age and beyond. It is you who presume rupture. Whereas, the Catholic presumption has basis in the facts of history as well as the pages of Scripture, your presumption of some sort of Great Apostasy having taken place in the1st or 2nd Century has no such basis Scripturally or otherwise. You are operating according to a baseless presumption of rupture in the Early Church. And it's you who demands that the Scriptures occupy a place they don't claim for themselves. It's you who's begging the question. It's you who's attempting to hold me to something that you acknowledge must be "inferred" from the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura). It's you who when James says "... A man is not justified by faith alone but by works also" demand that others read that verse according to your interpretation of it which, incidentally, suggests the exact opposite of what the verse actually says while claiming Sola Scriptura. Meanwhile you've repeated the example of the fool's statement concerning atheism as if that's anything like James 2:24. For in James you're saying the opposite of what's said. Whereas, in Psalm 14:1 the verse itself identifies the atheistic statement as something a fool utters in his heart. And though I responded to that, you didn't offer a rejoinder, you just continued offering non-binding opinions and citing various Scriptural passages.

You were a Catholic. You apparently dropped the faith just shortly after you dropped the letters "teen" from the end of your age. And neither your zeal at that time or your zeal now should be confused with an actual argument for having done so.

It was you who once told me to slow down as I attempted to field a host of comments and challenges. Again, I am asking that you slow down and actually consider the content of what I'm trying to say. If it's nonsense, don't just say so. Explain why it's nonsense. Otherwise, we'll get nowhere. I feel like Martin and I have gotten more dialoguing done in a few messages than you and I have gotten accomplished in so many. So please actually respond. Explain. I want to hear your reasoning. I want to know how my responses to Dr. Geisler's points were not good. And when it comes down to a difference of opinion, you need to be able to explain why your opinion is preferable to mine as a matter of faith.

Thanks again, DHK.

Hopefully we can get this conversation on the move again!

Peace to you!

Herbert

 

DHK,

For the record, Pope Francis has just re-affirmed the teaching of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae with these words from his just-released Amoris Laeticia (below: Paragraphs 80-83). This appears to be the clarification that we were awaiting in light of Pope Francis's confounding remarks concerning Zika Virus. For though his remarks were indeed very confusing at best and contradictory to doctrine at worst, he has here provided the clarity we've awaited:

"Marriage is firstly an “intimate partnership of life and love” which is a good for the spouses themselves, while sexuality is “ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman”. It follows that “spouses to whom God has not granted children can have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms”. Nonetheless, the conjugal union is ordered to procreation “by its very nature”. The child who is born “does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfilment”. He or she does not appear at the end of a process, but is present from the beginning of love as an essential feature, one that cannot be denied without disfiguring that love itself. From the outset, love refuses every impulse to close in on itself; it is open to a fruitfulness that draws it beyond itself. Hence no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning, even when for various reasons it may not always in fact beget a new life. A child deserves to be born of that love, and not by any other means, for “he or she is not something owed to one, but is a gift”, which is “the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of the parents”. This is the case because, “according to the order of creation, conjugal love between a man and a woman, and the transmission of life are ordered to each other (cf. Gen 1:27-28). Thus the Creator made man and woman share in the work of his creation and, at the same time, made them instruments of his love, entrusting to them the responsibility for the future of mankind, through the transmission of human life”. The Synod Fathers stated that “the growth of a mentality that would reduce the generation of human life to one variable of an individual’s or a couple’s plans is clearly evident”. The Church’s teaching is meant to “help couples to experience in a complete, harmonious and conscious way their communion as husband and wife, together with their responsibility for procreating life. We need to return to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Blessed Pope Paul VI, which highlights the need to respect the dignity of the person in morally assessing methods of regulating birth… The choice of adoption or foster parenting can also express that fruitfulness which is a characteristic of married life”. With special gratitude the Church “supports families who accept, raise and surround with affection children with various disabilities”. Here I feel it urgent to state that, if the family is the sanctuary of life, the place where life is conceived and cared for, it is a horrendous contradiction when it becomes a place where life is rejected and destroyed. So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the “property” of another human being. The family protects human life in all its stages, including its last. Consequently, “those who work in healthcare facilities are reminded of the moral duty of conscientious objection. Similarly, the Church not only feels the urgency to assert the right to a natural death, without aggressive treatment and euthanasia”, but likewise “firmly rejects the death penalty”.

 

Here is the fallacy in your argument; It is the Scripture, God's Word, that tells us who is saved and who is not. It is not up for an opinion. God took that "opinion" option out of our hands. We are commanded to "preach the word". This is what you are refusing to do.

I do not say who is damned and who is saved, God says so, we only preach to the world what God has said. Let me give you an example of preaching the Word, and this works with any portion of Scripture you may choose for any particular topic. Since we are on the topic of salvation, I will preach the Word to you on salvation....

Herbert, have you ever heard about the One called Jesus Christ? God sent His Son from heaven to save mankind from their sins. Let me read to you from God's Word what Jesus said when He preached here on earth before His crucifixion. Here is a portion from the Gospel of John recorded for us; Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Do you want to here more about what Jesus said from God's Word and why God said we need a Saviour Herbert?

 

steaver,

First of all, you didn't identify a fallacy.

Second, far from demonstrating the claim that I've argued fallaciously, you are revealing your own fallacious reasoning. Your fallacy here would be called the fallacy of conflation in which two separate things are regarded as one. In this case, you've committed this fallacy at least twice: First, you conflated your ability to access Scripture with God's task of judging people with finality. Second, you are conflating two very distinct concepts: Preaching & Eternal Judgment. The fact that the Lord saw it fit to reveal the contents of Scripture to us through His Church shouldn't be understood as your being privately entrusted with the ability to determine with finality the eternal destinations of your fellow man. Nor are you right to mistake preaching and exhortation for that task which will be executed by the Lord of Heaven and Earth. Amen.

This is one of the approximately 13.8 billion problems with Sola Scriptura. It convinces its adherent not that he's accessing Scripture privately with his fallible mind, his reason, and his social and cultural contexts at work. It glosses over, in the mind of its adherent, the reality of the fact that His fallible human mind is playing a mediating role in the very act of accessing Scripture. As the Scriptures themselves attest: "Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." Notice, the passage doesn't just speak of unstable people, but those who are untaught or ignorant. They, like you, may certainly mean well. But SS cannot guarantee a man (as a matter of faith) that he isn't one of those untaught and unstable people who's guilty of twisting the Scriptures when the private man is the very thing who's arrogated to himself the three-fold role of "judge, jury, and executioner." So he sees himself merely as speaking on God's behalf, by virtue of the fact that he knows in his heart that he loves God and he can read. The Church, in contrast, sees itself as the Institution, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit which represents, as Chesterton said, the highest mind of man guided by God (a quote I've referred to already) while the adherent to SS applies to himself that role. So instead of seeing the Church (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic), which can be pastured by God Almighty, as the very principle by which Orthodoxy may be determined, the adherent to SS sees the Scripture alone as this principle and the fact that he's surrounded by others who disagree with him yet claim the same principle, doesn't seem to trouble him in the least, for, he tells himself "I am the one who is accessing Scripture rightly!" Again, SS convinces him he's right when he's right. And it convinces him he's right when he's wrong.

But when you understand your ability to read Scripture as coming complete with your ability to deduce from it principles by which you can conclusively identify who's going to Hell and who's not, then God's ultimate judgment and your ability to read Scripture are, again, conflated. So you say "I don't say who is damned and who is saved, God says so." And it is just then that you, like a Muslim with his Koran, by convincing himself that he's not participating in an unguarded process of interpretation, sees the world as a place of black and white, when Christ Himself lived out a ministry of apparent violations of the "black and white" legalism of the Pharisess and in doing so demonstrated the righteousness to which all laws should be ordered, and demonstrated that the Law is a means to an end, which is the Love of God.

Also, it seems as though you're presenting a straw man here. I am not saying "Don't preach." I am not saying "There is another way to Heaven other than Christ." But your comments above presuppose such to be the case. Again, though, the truth of the Scriptures and the ultimate justice which will be determined by God alone are not in competition with one another. And it's not the individual's place to squirm himself in there by supposing that he can, logically or otherwise, determine how God's love will ultimately be expressed as far as the state of any one individual human sould is concerned.

Rather than taking the time to attempt to do something you can't do (demonstrate the legitimacy of Sola Scriptura), you proceed by applying it in a most patronizing manner, and presenting to me, as a silly legalistic and rhetorical tool, the very words of Holy Scripture. I have been able to quote those words from heart since I was in Awana as a child. Further, you needn't convince me that we need a Savior, I'm a Christian!

Again, though this conversation has taken an unsuspected turn, I am happy to hear what you have to say in response to what I've just shared.

Thanks,

Herbert

 

We brought up many doctrines and then began to zero in on some of the more important ones.
IMO, this is one of the least important of those doctrines (it still is important), because it does not deal with the doctrines essential to salvation. We all agree in the sanctity of the home. There is not to much to debate here. Sometimes, like today, the Pope makes an odd statement:

But that statement is really not worth discussing in light of the church's understanding of the "new birth" for example.
Or that list of doctrines which cannot be defended by the Bible.
Even the statement in 1Cor.4:5 which you keep defending and using out of context making it mean something it was never intended to mean.

I was also going to go back and address more about the words Jesus said in John 20:
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
--I think I gave the meaning but don't remember a response.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
--Or what did Jesus mean here.
We both believe that the Pope's position is to protect the family. I consider that position good, in the light of today's society. Let's move on to some of these other subjects.

 

I'll go back and see what I have missed. Sometimes we hone in on one particular aspect so much so that we forget all the other material that you have posted.

All my arguments come from scripture. You keep using 1Cor.4:5 in a way it shouldn't be used. I see that and quite frankly it bothers me. Let me give you a more recent example. Remember I already explained, using scripture what this passage meant and quoted the entire context to you.
Here is what was recently said:

Martin said to you: "That is because you don't understand what the passage means."
You responded:
How do you know that it isn't you misunderstanding what St. Paul is saying? We could just volley this charge all day. But where does the authority lie? In St. Paul? I don't think so, for he's the very one you say I don't understand, which is, again, why Chesterton said that "You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement..." So no, Martin, it's you who doesn't understand Paul "No. It's you, Herbert." No. It's you, etc. etc. :^)

I demonstrated to you (and Martin could have done the same thing) why I don't have a misunderstanding of the Scripture.
I will simply list some of the reasons for you.
1. Scripture doesn't contradict itself; your interpretation has scripture contradicting itself. That is
why I provided more scripture.

2. The authority is scripture itself. It is always the final authority. Thus our appeal is to the Scripture. The command is:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--We dare not abdicate this command and substitute the RCC Magesterium in its place. The onus is on us to find the truth of Scripture not to yield to one set power, who in many cases is wrong.

3. You say "The Bible itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement."
If you ask Martin, I believe that his interpretation of this passage will be very similar to mine, even though I have not consulted him on it.

4. The Bible interprets itself. If we don't come up with God's interpretation, then we are wrong, not God. Our duty is to find out what God is telling us, not to yield to some other fallible organization.

5. No true Christian is afraid to put the Bible in the witness box. The prophet proclaimed in the OT: "Thus saith the Lord." That exact phrase is used 430 times in the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

6. Martin doesn't misunderstand Paul; neither do I. But you have mis-used this passage more than once making it say something it doesn't.

I am not sure what you mean here. There is no continuity between the time of the apostles and the formation of the RCC in the fourth century. If there was you would be able to show this and demonstrate both biblically and historically. But you can't do either one.
There is no Magesterium in the Bible. When did such a body first appear? If Polycarp was taught by John, for example, there was no Magesterium yet in the time of Polycarp. So where did this man-made group of men, not appointed of God come from? You must provide the evidence, not just assumptions. You even assume Peter was the first Pope when there is no evidence (previously supplied), that Peter was in Rome. Now new archeological evidence has come to light that they have found his remains and tomb in Jerusalem, which verifies that.

I operate under Biblical evidence that the word in the Bible used for church is ekklesia which means assembly or local church. Paul established local churches. There was no such thing as "The Church." The Church as you know it did not exist. You operate under a false assumption that there was some kind of Catholic Church when you can't prove it.

The Bible is a history book as well as a book of doctrine. The book of Acts is the historical record of the early church. There is more evidence in that book than in any other document. And that record is inspired of God. Now, where do you get your information from other than simply baseless assumptions made up by the RCC which they have no evidence for. Give evidence for your claims or retract them.

Here is an incident that happened in Toronto on March 14 of this year.
A Muslim, Ali, walked into the office located in a federal government building in north Toronto around 3 p.m. Monday and slashed a male soldier behind the counter in the arm with a “large knife,” then tried and failed to stab a female soldier before being subdued by Forces members, one of whom was injured in the process.
Both soldiers were treated for non-life-threatening injuries and released.
Saunders told reporters Tuesday the accused said at the scene “Allah told me to do this. Allah told me to come here and kill people.”
--What evidence do we have that a God called Allah commanded him to murder Canadian soldiers? What do you think? Is there good hard evidence that he can produce in a court of law?
No. He can't provide any. The jury must rely on his "assumptions."

If you have no evidence for your claims, if they cannot be accepted by a jury of your peers, then they will not stand.
There were churches throughout history, but never "The Church," as in the RCC. You have no proof. When are you going to provide that proof, that evidence that is needed?

When we get through some of these perhaps we can tackle some of the other questions raised.

 

1 of 3 to DHK

DHK, Hi again. If I remember correctly, the question of contraception, the Pope's remarks, and the Zika virus were presented by you as an example of the Church changing its teachings (something you said happened very frequently, though you never substantiated the claim).

I still don't see how my granting to God His role of "ultimate" judgment and appealing to a principle very much present in St. Paul's words there at the beginning of Chapter Four of his first letter to the Corinthians is so controversial. Though St. Paul has some specific circumstances in mind (with regard to the role of the stewards of God's mysteries, etc.) when he made his points there, what he said was, at the very least, related to the question of the God's place in relationship to the place a servant of God occupies, which is the question I was speaking to as far as claiming to have sufficient knowledge to damn people to Hell goes.

That should read "I think I gave an opinion..."

What did He mean? He meant what He said, which is that St. Peter was the "rock." Also, however, we look to this passage and see St. Peter's *profession* of Christ's identity as the "rock," as well. There is some profound depth here, as there was in everything the Lord said. Christ is the Rock, of course. But as the famous Baptist scholar DA Carson says, linguistically speaking, St. Peter is, according to the words of Christ, the rock: “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined in poetry. . . . The Greek makes a distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name” (D.A. Carson, Matthew, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 368). So again the Both-And principle is rightly put to use as we consider Christ's identity as the true foundation of our faith while on a linguistic and ecclesiological level, Christ was singling St. Peter out for a unique task.

??? My understanding was that you taught and believed that the Pope taught a false Gospel, that he claims wrongly to be the Vicar of Christ, and that he is likely responsible for leading many people to sin and damnable evil. Yet here you say that "...the Pope's position is to protect the family..." I am truly baffled by this statement, not because I don't love it, but because it seems to contradict nearly everything you've said about the Catholic Church, the Papacy, Soteriology, and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Again, I'm happy to get things back on track (wherever that may be). I was just revisiting this topic because today's news reveals to us the clarity we awaited which could shine a light on the Pope's recent comments about Zika virus and thus reveal whether or not the Church had "changed its doctrine" in this area.

Yes, that's why I often take a few days off to read, re-read, consider, and process all of the complicated material which comes up here (Well, that and I am busy with life!).

Again, who are you to say that I may not draw a rather clear principle from Scripture and apply it to life, conversation, and rational consideration as I see fit, as long as I am remaining consistent with God's principles in my efforts to apply them to life? And again, all of your arguments don't come from Scripture. Those which are right come first from God. You appeal to Scripture to substantiate your views when you're right. And because you cling to Sola Scriptura, you also appeal to Scripture to substantiate your views when you're wrong.

I am sorry that it bothers you. I don't mean to offend you. But I sincerely don't see what's so controversial about my application of that concept which St. Paul was presenting to the question of the individual believer's presumed ability to determine who is and who is not going to Hell, which, I maintain, at the end of the day, is a task for our all-knowing God alone. Meanwhile, I do indeed preach a clear Gospel which states that Christ is the only way to Heaven, period. My view, even as a Catholic, is very much like the view of Hell and damnation which was presented by CS Lewis in his book called The Problem of Pain.

No. You demonstrated why you don't believe yourself to have adopted a misunderstanding of Scripture. But I don't believe that I've done that, either. And Scripture refuses to strong arm either of us on behalf of the other for it is the written Word of God. That is, it is His message to us. It, then, relays that which He wishes to relay. But when it comes to matters of binding and loosing, and applying the teaching of Scripture to life, that is a role taken up first by the Apostles and thereafter by the Successors to the Apostles according to Christ's designs.

 

2 of 3 to DHK

No, it doesn't. That's your opinion. Piling on Scriptures which either you or I could be misapplying will get us nowhere, either. That's why Scripture doesn't tell us to pile on more Scripture. The Scriptures tell us to appeal to the church of the Living God... and not Sola Scriptura.

Again, you're just repeating yourself and making the same mistake you've made at least three times now. The authority is decidedly NOT Scripture itself. The authority is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He established a Church. The Holy Spirit delivered the Words of Scripture through the agency of men. And Jesus is "always the final authority." Again, Chesterton's definition comes to mind... Idolatry is the preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it symbolizes. Preference for Scripture OVER Christ, then, would be a form of idolatry. I am just laying that thought out there for consideration, though. I am not saying you're going so far as to do this in your heart. But when you say "The authority is Scripture itself. It is always the final authority." I want to say "But wait, what about Jesus Christ? He's the truly ultimate authority!" And 2nd Timothy 2:15 certainly discusses "rightly dividing the word of truth." But that's not an appeal to Sola Scriptura any more than 2nd Timothy wasn't written by an Apostle who according to Eusebius established the episcopacy of Timothy (as the first Bishop of Ephesus) himself through the sacramental laying on of hands, etc. in about the year AD 65.

That makes two of you. For that matter, there are a host of things we agree upon, thanks be to God. But I could line up five prominent Reformation-era leaders and identify truly fundamental aspects of the faith which they did not agree upon. I won't even go into it. But as you certainly well know, Martin Luther disagreed with a number of people so vehemently as to break communion with them (usually through mutual disapproval). And when John Calvin came along, with his sharp mind, and his great intellect, he formalized a systematic theology which read things into Scripture that Luther certainly didn't see there. Now bring the King of England in and through the Acts of Supremacy one finds a Head of State and Head of Church which still holds to a host of Catholic-ish practices and ecclesiological disciplines which have nothing to do with, for example the AnaBaptist views held by others or the views held by Michael Servetus, an enemy to Catholics and Protestants alike who met his fate in Protestant Geneva. So much for "soul liberty" there in Geneva, I guess.

 

3 of 3 to DHK

Again, that is your opinion. I don't believe that I've misapplied a rather uncontroversial principle in the slightest.

You've said that the Catholic Church was established under Constantine numerous times. Since Constantine died in AD 337, maybe you're now saying the 4th Century to bump it back a bit and end up under the reign of Theodosius. That would be a good move. Because it was under Theodosius that various significant changes did take place with regard to the Church and its relationship to the state as well as the practice of Paganism, etc. Still, though, the fact that much occurred under the watch of Theodosius doesn't mean that the Catholic Church was formed during such a time. And to deny continuity with the Apostles is really more about proposing rupture. For the basis by which one might feel justified in presupposing continuity is nothing but Scripture itself. For there we see the Life, Death, and Resurrection of the Lord. We see His Glorious Resurrection. We then see him empower His Apostles. We see Him send them forth into the world with the promise of the Holy Spirit to go and baptize in His name. We then see the great and wondrous events of Pentecost. And we see the evangelistic efforts of the early Church there in the book of Acts. Further, the rest of the New Testament provides even more witness to that early Church which was already one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. And fundamental to the whole economy of the Church is the reality of the New Covenant in His blood. This is a new and eternal covenant. And it is the central principle by which we, in recognition of the existence of the Catholic Church there in the 1st Century, and corroborated by the likes of St. Ignaius of Antioch in about AD 107 (with his use of the term Ecclesia Catholica) presume not rupture between then and the 4th Century, but unity and continuity on account of the wonders that Christ worked among men there during the 1st Century.

You're begging the question again. What else but a Magisterium met in Jerusalem to decide upon pressing matters related to Gentiles and their incorporation in Christ's Church? What else but a Magisterium, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, filled Judas's empty Office?

This body "first appeared" in one sense when Christ called the 12 to His side. But at the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in signs and wonders, do we see the first and most profound and public validation of the Holy Spirit at work among men (after Christ's Glorious Ascension).

I know this. But to presume this without having a sound basis by which the presumption is made is to beg the question by presuming *only* the local jurisdiction of the New Testament churches. This is not a sound presumption as it contradicts Scriptural data, historical data, and logic. There was a "Church" which was the totality of all the local churches, organically bound and unified in doctrine, sacraments, and government. The Church as an acorn which has become an Oak Tree did exist then and it will exist now. And by virtue of its unity with its Head, Christ, it shall exist for eternity in the great Body of redeemed souls who will forever sing praises to God Almighty. Amen.

These are not baseless assumptions. Those were the things I held to once, which I'd received from my well-meaning but mistaken Biblicist tradition. There is a writer named Rod Bennet who was a Baptist, too. He has written some great books that speak to the very evidence you're denying. If you're interested, look him up. I won't link it so as to avoid violating the policy here. But if you search "Four Witness Brought Me Home" and his name on youtube, you'll find a lot of the information you're telling me doesn't exist. But honestly, it would take many pages for me to try to begin really presenting detailed information for you. But I assure you it's there. If you would like me to send some information to you through e-mail, I can do that, too: herbert.vanderlugt(at)gmail.com

This act of violence, as I see it, has pretty much nothing to do with me or you or the positions we hold to other than the fact that Muslims have a Sola Scriptura problem of their own.

Wait. Apart from the fact that I do have plenty of evidence for my claims, you just appealed to a "jury of my peers." What about "soul authority"? What about Sola Scriptura? That often happens when people who cling to Sola Scriptura don't get what they need, they appeal to historical consensus or democratic appeal, etc. What authority greater than the Scriptures, according to your view, does a "jury of my peers" hold? How about none? What you're really doing is appealing to the intuitively sound idea that though one man might go astray, God wouldn't let everybody miss the mark. And that is, roughly, what Catholics are saying.

The proof (for the purposes of faith) lies in what I mentioned before, the motives of credibility (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm). They are as follows:
1) Miracles
2) Prophecies
3) The Church herself
4) And most sublimely, the Person of Christ

Sounds great, DHK.

Thanks for your continued patience!

Herbert

 

Herbert, calm down a bit. I was not patronizing you. I was giving you an example of a Christian who is preaching the Word of God to a person who may not have heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I used you for the purpose of helping you understanding how it would be presented as though you were that person on the other end who has not heard for the sake of impact, which obviously worked well..

Now back to my presentation, which you brushed off. You say I am making private interpretations, this is a straw man protest, for I made no interpretations at all, I told you what the Apostle John said Jesus Christ's message was to us, in part, and I asked you if you wanted to hear more. It seems you do not want to hear more, that you are objecting or rejecting what I told you God said so far. Why? What is causing you to reject what God said? You cannot claim it is my interpretation because I made no such claims in my presentation. I gave you the pure Word of the Lord so as to not place any of my own or other's biases into the text.

Where do you see any private interpretation in my presentation? And more importantly, are you rejecting what I read for you what God had said? Do you want to hear more of what Jesus said?

 

We can agree on one thing: it's a really bad analogy. :p I'll confine myself to 2 Peter 1:3ff. According to these verses, salvation is of God, every last bit of it. Grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone (''through our knowledge of Him who called us....'), and where do we learn about it all? From the Scriptures alone. And where does the glory go? To God alone. At the point of salvation, it is all of God, none of us. But then Peter goes on to say (v5), 'But also for that very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge......etc.' So we see the difference between justification and sanctification. Justification is all of God, every bit of it. sanctification is when we, having been born of the Sprit, are able to live lives that are, to some extent at least, pleasing to God.

Psalm 136:6. 'Whatever the LORD pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all deep places.'
Proverbs 19:21. 'There are many plans in a man's heart, nevertheless, the LORD's counsel- that will stand.'
God did not cause Adam and Eve to sin, but He created them knowing that they would sin (Acts 15:18) This He did for His own high and righteous purposes. But God never says, "Oh no! I didn't expect that to happen.
Psalm 110:3. 'Your people shall be volunteers in the day of Your power.'
Mary submitted to God's plan of her own free will, but it was God who made her willing. You seemed to be suggesting that God was dependent on Mary's cooperation. The Book of Jonah is there to tell us that the Creator is not dependent on His creation.

Herbert, you seem to be a very sincere and intelligent chap, and what I'm going to write will seem very harsh to you. May I assure you that I'm writing to try to help you and not just to score points or to put you down. 'Because I do not love you? God knows!" (2 Cor. 11:11).

The Bible is what God has given us, and this is one place (not the only one, alas!) where the Church of Rome goes so dangerously wrong. In Revelation 13:11, we see the beast from out of the earth (later referred to as the 'false prophet). He represents false religion. The beast has horns like a lamb- that is, he claims the power of Christ, the Lamb of God. But He speaks like a dragon (cf. Revelation 12:9). How does the dragon speak? He says, "Has God indeed said.......?" (Genesis 3:1). This, with respect, is what you are saying: "We can't really know what God has said in His word so we need some other authority." No! This is the devil speaking! He has deceived you! The Lord Jesus was constantly referring the Jews away from their traditions and back to the word, and answering their questions from the Scriptures. "For laying aside the commandments of God, you hold to the traditions of men' (Mark 7:6-8). "Have you never read.....?" (Matthew 19:4; 21:6; Mark 2:25) "Have you not even read this Scripture.....?" (Mark 12:10). "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures.....? (Mark 12:24). "What is written in the law?" (Luke 10:26).

So how do we know who's interpreting the word correctly? First of all, we should be led by the Spirit. 'But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things' (1 John 2:20). But the Holy Spirit is not given as a cover for laziness. 'Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2:15). The word of God is sufficient for us. 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (or 'God-breathed') and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The Church is the body of Christ, so when someone persecutes the Church he is persecuting Christ; that is pretty straightforward. But that does not mean that our Lord's sufferings were not entirely sufficient to redeem His people (Isaiah 53:11a; Hebrews 10:12-14). What Paul was talking about in Colossians 1:24 is that in the living out of the Christian faith and the spreading of the word there is more suffering to come. We see that in Pakistan, Syria, North Korea and elsewhere today.

Thank you! :) And yours as well. I was 38 when I was born for the second time.

Yes indeed. Three persons, but only one God.

You are entirely wrong here. First of all the word 'priesthood' is hiereuma from hiereus. Every Christian is a priest. Secondly, a priest is someone who intercedes between God and man. We have a great High Priest in heaven ever interceding for us, therefore we have no need of a separate human priesthood because we all have direct access to God through Him. Thirdly the sacrifice that we bring as priests has nothing to do with the eucharist. 'I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service' (Romans 12:1). We do not offer Christ's body over and over again (as if we could!), but our own selves in grateful service to our Saviour.

If you would like to continue our conversation, I think it would be better to narrow down the range of the debate. If you would like a separate thread on Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Transubstantiation, Authority or any other aspect that takes your fancy, let me know. :)

 

Even though you are claiming no private interpretation here, you do have a certain interpretation of what the Scriptures mean, so where are you getting this interpretation? I can point out God's word where Jesus says: "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood", yet you will most likely deny this very truth that Jesus said in his own words right from the Scriptures. So in the end you do indeed have a certain interpretation of the Scriptures that differs from that espoused by orthodox Christianity

 

Let's simply look at it this way. The RCC claims to have originated with the apostles. Yet their doctrine is not apostolic doctrine. If it were it would be found in the Bible. Correct? Thus the insistence on sola scriptura.
Any one of us can present you a list of of Catholic "man-made" doctrines that have been added to the church's official "deposit of truth" and much of it is fairly recent.
1. The Assumption of Mary was not an official doctrine until 1950, and certainly cannot be found in the Bible.
2. The official stand on adding the apocryphal books to the Bible was not taken until 1546 though there was much debate about them prior to that time.
3. The belief that you now hold so dear: that Oral Tradition should hold equal value to the Scriptures, was not "changed" and accepted by the RCC until the Council of Trent.

You can find all these changes to Catholic doctrine here:

http://www.eaec.org/cults/rc/timeline.htm

or here

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

First, it goes to the duty of the correct interpretation of Scripture. You speak about agreement and disagreement. Without consulting Martin or Steaver on a passage like this I am sure that both will agree with "my interpretation" and not yours. Yet your argument is that there is no agreement among us; among those that hold to sola scriptura.
Second, your interpretation leads to grave error. You are putting it in the context of eternal life and eternal damnation. That is very serious.

For example, I know beyond any shadow of any doubt that if I should die at any time today (or in the future), I will go straight to heaven. All my sins (past, present and future), have been forgiven. They are all under the blood of Christ. I don't have to wait for "that time" to be judged. The Lord has already given me eternal life.
One can ask about the testimonies of others on the board: Do you know for sure that you have forgiveness of sins, and an assurance of eternal life? They will tell you.
But you are mis-using that verse to say that one cannot know, which is wrong.

Whatever way you think it should be stated, the important point is: did you give a response.
That is what you are asking me to do.

Here is a helpful quote from Herschel Hobbs, a former president of the SBC:

It is sufficient to say that since petros is masculine and petra is feminine it is unlikely that the two are identical. A petra was a large ledge rock such as a foundation rock. A petros was a small stone broken off the large stone and partaking of its nature. Some scholars discount the distinction, holding that Jesus probably spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, where such a distinction is absent. No one knows the language used. It could have been either of these or Greek. However, it is most likely that Matthew, in the Greek text, preserved the sense of Jesus’ statement. In the Old Testament where “rock” is used symbolically, it always refers to deity.

Certainly the foundation of the church is Christ, not Peter or any other mere man (1Cor.3:11). There are varying views, even among Baptists, as to the meaning of Jesus’ words. The writer sees “rock” as referring to Christ. Peter was a petros, a small stone partaking of Christ’s nature. The church is built upon Christ, the building stones being all who, like Peter, confess him as “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (See 1Pet.2:5). [From the book, "The Baptist Faith and Message," Herschel Hobbs, p.66]