Featured Temporal Justification

You could, but you would have brothers and sisters in Christ who would call you out on what swerved from a sound view.

Unfortunately, you would also have those who would be your cheerleaders who had also bought into whatever wind of doctrine you might present.

That is why there has to be an authoritative voice in the dispute, lol, and that is the Word of God:


Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


Christ implies that their error is because they do not know the Scriptures. The corollary is that knowing the Scriptures helps one to not be in error, right? The implicit teaching is that not knowing the Scriptures leads to error. And how many times have you seen someone say something incredibly stupid that conflicted with basic knowledge most believers know?

I mean, besides the stuff I speak about.




Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


Christ could have just spoken and said "I am Christ, believe it you fools!" but He didn't. He said, "You know that Scripture in Isaiah? Well this is how it applies to me. Remember the seed of the woman? Well this is what it spoke about, Me."


Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,


I think how the father of church fathers did things is an excellent pattern for our own lives. Don't you?


Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


Probably more than a few plow boys in this group.


Acts 18:28
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


Paul didn't just say, "Take my word for it, fellas." He showed them Jesus was the Christ through Scripture.


Romans 1:1-3 King James Version

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;


Paul's appeal to authority was to the Scripture.

So I have to disagree with your assessment:

Continued...

 

It's called exegesis, not lawyering, lol.

Will you really deny that presenting Scripture and giving the reason why it supports a point or a doctrine is not how it has always been done?

The father of church fathers did it, why should we not?

The believers at Thessalonica did it without being reprimanded by Scripture itself. Why should we not?

How, Cathode, can you be sure of the doctrine of the men you put over as your spiritual rulers (and I mean that in the biblical sense, not denigrating the leadership of the Catholic Church) if you know not the Scriptures?

Would you admit that it might be possible you could be in error on some things? This is what Christ charged those who were "experts" and spiritual rulers in His Day.


God bless.

 

Still waiting to hear how you are suffering, Campion.

God bless.

 

Still waiting for an answer to this from Walter and Campion:

God bless.

 

Still waiting for an answer for this question, Cathode.


God bless.

 

I agree. I don't equate what Paul did in the way he did it to what the Thessalonians did.

However, I did present Scripture that denied your position:

Cathode said: ↑

I could interpret anything I want from scripture in Protestantism since everyone is their own pope and own arbiter of scripture, whose going to tell me I’m wrong, just me and my Bible is the whole of the law.


This is not true: what you "interpret" is going to be tested by others who also "interpret."

Conclusions drawn from Scripture is not a "private interpretation," it is simply bringing out of the text what is there. If someone doesn't do that God has those who call them out. He always has.

That is what I am doing here, lol.

There is no condemnation for these folks that did what we do today:


Acts 18:24-28 King James Version

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


Apollos wasn't even a born-again believer yet. He knew only the baptism of John (v.25). Yet he was considered "mighty in the Scriptures." He wasn't an Apostle. He wasn't an inspired writer.

He was just a Jew teaching from the Old Testament.

Aquila and Priscilla were not apostles (though in the lower-case meaning they were sent of God) nor inspired writers. They were just born again believers that expounded the Scriptures more perfectly (completely) than Apollos' knowledge.

So if you are going to be consistent and say that "we should do things the way we have for two centuries (paraphrased)," then you are going to have to acknowledge that those who expound Scripture do not have to be the leadership of a particular church.

I can understand why people are drawn to the Catholic Church, because it is orderly, and having a long tradition they find comfort in that.

However, the idea that the Catholic Church is innocent of error and hasn't been guilty of "private interpretation" is false. I mentioned Indulgences, and do so again: This isn't something the church has taught and practiced since the early church. It was a false doctrine and practice created out of thin air, separate from the Word of GOd, and deceitful. It promised remission of sins for money.

Deny that.

Defend Indulgences.

You can do neither.

I am afraid that you have fallen prey to the enmity we see bred in most churches. The basis for this enmity is "We have the truth and are the true Church." It teaches hatred of others, and this is not a result of the work of God in the hearts of men. We are to love our enemies, right? Not despise them. We are to seek to see men saved, not ridiculed, right? We must hate the Mormon, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Charismatic. Choose your poison.

The fact is, as I presented in the previous post, God not only means for men to read Scripture for themselves, He demands that we understand them.

I agree, however, that there are mouths that need to be stopped. So how are we going to do that? Who is going to do that?


Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


What stops the mouths of men? lol

The Word of God.


2 Timothy 2:22-25 King James Version

22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.


23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.


24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,


25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


Who is Paul speaking of? The leadership? Or the Layman?

We are to be apt to teach. We can't do that if we don't know what the Word means.

We are to instruct those that oppose themselves, and this for the purpose of these who oppose themselves learning truth.

So again, I can see why people would be drawn to a church that is orderly and takes responsibility out of their hands. Because that is what an insistence that men who are not of the leadership of a particular church should not learn, and should not teach does.


Continued...

 

Not entirely true: I do not view the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, thus those who do have broadened their scope. I'm sure they feel this is an advantage but the truth is, I won't be judged based on what is found there. Those who teach out of it will.

Secondly, j just as Aquila and Priscilla expounded Scripture to Apollos, even so we that do the same thing will be judged for it, and for what we teach. And this to a greater degree of judgment than those who do not teach.

That is both an advantage and a disadvantage for the non-teaching.

I am more authoritative than the one that teaches that Christ's Sacrifice did not bring about Eternal Redemption. Why? Because I can show in Scripture that Christ's death did in fact bring about Eternal Redemption.

I am more authoritative than the man teaching that there is no God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Why? Same reason. And it isn't my authority, but the authority of what Scripture teaches.

If you wanted to tell someone that Christ died in the stead of the sinner, would you just tell them and say "Well, that is just what I believe because my Priest told me that," or would you affirm that this is what Scripture teaches?

I have presented what I think is authoritative in our discussion, Cathode. When you say men shouldn't "privately interpret," I didn't just say "It isn't a matter of privately interpreting, it's a matter of what God has charged us to do, and we see that example in the early church in the laity."

Can you honestly say that the points raised aren't based on the very Scripture provided? No, not honestly you can't. If you disagree with my "interpretation of those Scriptures then you have a responsibility to correct me, right? And how will you do that? With the Scripture that your leadership uses to support the doctrine and practice they teach.

Right?

Will you deny that Apollos and Aquila and Priscilla did that, and weren't of the leadership of the Church, the Body of Christ?


Continued...

 

I've told you before, that I am not a Luther groupie. I find fault with his doctrine on certain points and consider the man to have remained a Catholic. A reading of the 95 Theses will show he was not that far removed from his indoctrination.

For many of the Reformed, I have just spoken blasphemy, lol.

Sorry, but all men are called to know the Word of God. That was why it was given.

And. the example of Biblical History is this: the leadership is usually corrupt.

The Kings were corrupt. The Pharisees were corrupt. This is why we see in Prophecy a reprimand of the "shepherds."

I agree we see a lot of corruption among Protestants and Evangelicals. We see men selling remission of sins, much like the Catholic Church did, when they tell people to send them money. But we wouldn't have that problem if people adhered to what the New Testament teaches concerning giving, offering, and tithing.

It is because people don't actually know what is in Scripture that they fall prey to the false shepherds. It's as simple as that.


Continued...

 

This is true, but there is a consistency among most Protestant and Evangelical churches that have "privately interpreted" the same conclusion: Jesus Christ died so that men might be reconciled to God and receive Eternal Redemption.

Their differences in what some call "non-essential doctrine" doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Myself, I think all doctrine is essential. I think the lack of understanding in one of the largest topics in Scripture, Eschatology, is why many cannot properly preach and teach the Gospel of Christ.

I agree. But then, I feel I am pointing out truths to you. And that you cannot see them because you will not, for yourself, give them consideration.

What is more true is that he has convinced men that they are their own authority.

I don't do that, I view Scripture as the authority.

You have made statements that only the leadership of the Catholic Church can properly interpret, and I did not just say "That isn't true," I showed you from Scripture why it isn't true.

Of course, you would need to be a Priest to address my error, right? Wrong. You have a responsibility to care for my eternal destiny. Don't you? Or does your membership in the church remove that responsibility?

The reason you are forbidden is simply that they do not want you questioning their authority.

It's that simple, Cathode.

I call that blind faith.

What the Catholic Church teaches today is not all 2,000 year old Apostolic Tradition. The Apostles did not forbid men to read the Word of God, but encouraged it. Their Epistles were sent to the Body. Some were sent to leadership, but for the purpose of instructing the Body.

Read the introductions, and you will see.

Hey, thanks for the response, Cathode, I have enjoyed the discussion. My time here is going to have to draw to a close soon, and it will probably be a while before I return. I just want you to know that I am not trying to cast dispersion on the Catholic Church, nor on your faith. I have learned over the years that most churches are made up of pretty much the same types of people, that they range from conservative to fanatical, and that they are all at different stages of growth in the Body. If the congregations of every church body were quizzed on the doctrine their group actually teaches, most would fail, because they simply don't know the "particulars" of the doctrine of those groups. I only hope the best for you in your walk with Christ, and my address of your views is not with hostility, or contempt, but given with your best interests in mind.

I will agree that the Body of Christ is fractured and that the reason behind this is the diverse doctrines held by each group. I find them all, Catholic Church included, to be in error on various doctrines and practices. But what I do know, based on the authority of Scripture, is that men are not saved by God because they are doctrinally flawless. Quite the contrary: God saves men because they are dead and their doctrine and practice is evil. How one grows in grace and knowledge after they are saved will be directly tied to their understanding of the Word of God. Even the Catholic Church has as its basis for doctrine and practice the Scriptures. Catholic Theologians have for centuries consistently presented a Scriptural basis for most of their doctrine and practice. It's just a fact.

God bless.

 

Are you able to take your own advice?

And you charge me with twisting Scripture, yet you fail to see that the points you have raised to defend your position simply do not agree with what is actually in Scripture.

You do not even use Scripture to try to "warn me" from twisting Scripture.

You say the early church did not expound Scripture among the laity, yet Scripture states they did.

You say the Cathoolic Church is doing what the early church has done, yet they are not.

Why is it you won't comment on INdulgences? Is it because you have no answer for that corrupt practice of the Catholic Church?

Of course it is.

So I cannot continue to try to reason with you out of the Scriptures, as men of God has always done (even before the Church was established), because you have no interest in what the Scriptures say. You have proved that time after time.

So I will have to bow out of trying to reason with you from the Scriptures until such a time as you can provide a scriptural basis for your beliefs, rather than using what men have told you.


God bless.

 

And you ignore what is actually said here:


2 Peter 3:16 King James Version

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


You are the unlearned. You err because you do not know the Scriptures.

You are wresting the Scriptures in your denial of that which speaks against your views.

Laymen did in fact expound the Scriptures in the early church despite your insistence they did not.

Where is your address of that point?

You have not addressed the OP. And you know why? Because the Catholic Doctrine is as corrupt today as it was in Luther's Day. Luther's address of the error taught by the Catholic Church was incomplete. That is why there is so much confusion concerning the Doctrine of Justification.

And that is why you are trying to justify your own beliefs. That is why you cannot test the spirits that guide you.


1 John 4
King James Version

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


Now, can you step up to the plate?

Can you show why your doctrine that laymen are not supposed to expound upon the Word of God is true, and the Scriptures given you do not support my point?


God bless.

 

Differing views among groups was nothing new at that time.

Have you never read that the Pharisees and Sadducees were different sects?

And did either of those groups have a monopoly on truth?

Were these accepted "rulers" in line with what God's Word taught?

So I will ask you, Campion, since you agree with Cathode's views, to explain Indulgences.

Show where the early church sold remission of sins for money.


Continued...

 

Sure Protestantism has living authority to resolve exegetical disagreements. Your denial of that doesn't change the fact that Scripture teaches that men are justified by faith alone.

The problem that both the Protestant and the Catholic suffer, though, is the failure to properly contextualize temporal and eternal passages.

Thus you teach false doctrine and deny the Sacrifice of Christ, thereby denying Christ Himself. The error of the Protestant doesn't do that, it simply fails to bring the teachings of Justification into a clearer underrstanding.

But they are (those who understand man is saved by grace ugh faith, not by faith through grace, and certainly not by faith and works) still looking unto Christ for their salvation, rather than their spiritual leadership, and not for the good works they do.

If you want to see the authority up close and personal, here it is:


Hebrews 10:14 King James Version

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Based on the authority vested in me by God, and the Holy Scriptures, I can state with all certainty that it only by the Blood of Christ that men are saved.

You, Cathode, and any Catholic Theologian or Priest you would like to call to the table cannot deny this clearest of statements concerning Eternal Security based on remission of sins through His One Offering of Himself.

This declaration is based on what Scripture actually teaches, and if you read it for yourself you would see the truth of the declaration.

Remission of sins was achieved in a temporal context by animals dying in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior to Calvary.

Remission of sins was achieved on an eternal basis (note the words for ever in the verse) y His One Offering.

Now I can state without deceit that I am trusting in Jesus Christ. You cannot.

Not if you are adhering to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

It is a "saving grace" that Catholics are by and large very ignorant of the Scriptures, for perhaps your judgment may be lessened when you give account before God.

Now, my doctrine as a plow-boy is that Christ died to save men, and yours is that it is okay for the Catholic Church to sell remission of sin to men.

Unless you want to try to justify Indulgences and show from Scripture where the early church and the Apostles also practiced this method of remission of sin.

So let's test this theory that Protestantism cannot resolve disagreements, okay?


Continued...

 

What you "see" seems to be very selective.

You haven't "seen" the Scriptures presented to you. You haven't "seen" the need to address the points that deny your doctrine.

Again, tell me how Indulgences are a legitimate doctrine and practice by those you present as men that "keep the apostolic tradition?"

And explain to me why it is that laymen in the early church expounded upon the word of God yet your spiritual leaders deny this is something they can do today? You have confirmed Cathode's teaching.


Continued...