Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Dr. Walter]

I think I should have Dr. by my name. I've done the reading. (Btw that was my attempt at humor. )

Got it! Well, honestly "Dr." does not mean much if the "dr." is wrong and usually makes you a bigger target.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I must kindly disagree with your analysis below. The doctrine of justification does not begin until Romans 3:24. Romans 3:1-8 is simply a response to latter part of chapter two which demonstrates the law did them no good in regard to producing righteousness in their lives. Remember in 3:9 Paul is going to draw his conclusion of his argument from Romans 1:19 to Romans 3:8 that the NATURAL BORN man (Gentile - Rom. 1; Jew - Rom. 2:17-3:8) regardless of the light given him by God (light of nature, conscience, written revelation) will never respond to God or do righteousness as explicitly stated in Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:9-23.

Romans 3:1-5 is in response to the inferred objection that would arise over Paul demonstrating the giving of the Law did not make them better but condemned them. If it condemned them, then what advantage is it to be a jew over a gentile. The advantage is because of the things listed they had much more LIGHT and inclusive in that LIGHT was the light of the gospel which God uses to save NATURAL BORN men in spite of their rejection to the light. God did use that special light and did save many Jews (Rom. 11:1-5).

However, the context for justification does not begin to Romans 3:24 that defines it in a context of grace and faith in the gospel ("freely by grace") 3:25.

It is followed by a clear line of argument that forbids law keeping mixed with faith and yet not contrary to the law (Rom. 3:27-31). Faith does not deny the demands of the Law but fulfills it in the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ and His life and death which is the object of faith and basis for justification.

Directly following that declaration Paul enters upon a discussion that is designed to define justification by faith and what is included versus what is excluded.

Because its self evident but here we go. I supply evidence.

1) Note the context of Romans 4. its is a further discourse starting in Romans 3 Topic of discussion. to which Paul answers

2) So we are now in a discussion of comparison of doctrine with regard to Judaism and that is where he starts to build on christianity. Here he shows the condemnation applies to both Jew and Gentile not just to the Jew because they have law and the Jews aren't any worse for having it.
3) this next passage in context of this discourse isn't speaking about general laws but specifically judaic laws
4) From a Catholic perspective the Law does not equate sacrament. two entirely different creatures in definition and opperation. You try to make this passage fit to condemn the sacrament when its appealing to judaic law. In fact the Catholic will view this passage to emulate sacrament and even Misterion is used in this passage. The Catholic would say this is a foreshadowing of the baptism sacrament. Faith first and the sacrament is the Oath/sign of the righteousness the christian has by faith.
5) so this passage in romans 4
would not apply to the catholic but the judiazer or jew. See how its self evident once you understand the Catholic view of the sacraments.

You are correlating it with law they don't.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In properly placing circumcision in the context of Abraham, justification BEFORE circumcision Paul with one blow shatters the whole Legal system and gospel of Christ perpetuated by the Judiazers which made circumcision the first step toward justification through the works of the law which is the very same idea incorporated into Roman Catholicism as they view baptism as a means to convey new birth and justification.

And this is where the Catholic would disagree with you. Its not the very same. That like in Moses Faith is given to the believer first is following the model of Abraham in that he has faith. Yet unlike the circumsision as a sign of following the law its a sign of the grace incured and the freedom expressed as a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I must kindly disagree with your analysis below. The doctrine of justification does not begin until Romans 3:24. Romans 3:1-8 is simply a response to latter part of chapter two which demonstrates the law did them no good in regard to producing righteousness in their lives. Remember in 3:9 Paul is going to draw his conclusion of his argument from Romans 1:19 to Romans 3:8 that the NATURAL BORN man (Gentile - Rom. 1; Jew - Rom. 2:17-3:8) regardless of the light given him by God (light of nature, conscience, written revelation) will never respond to God or do righteousness as explicitly stated in Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:9-23.

Romans 3:1-5 is in response to the inferred objection that would arise over Paul demonstrating the giving of the Law did not make them better but condemned them. If it condemned them, then what advantage is it to be a jew over a gentile. The advantage is because of the things listed they had much more LIGHT and inclusive in that LIGHT was the light of the gospel which God uses to save NATURAL BORN men in spite of their rejection to the light. God did use that special light and did save many Jews (Rom. 11:1-5).

However, the context for justification does not begin to Romans 3:24 that defines it in a context of grace and faith in the gospel ("freely by grace") 3:25.

It is followed by a clear line of argument that forbids law keeping mixed with faith and yet not contrary to the law (Rom. 3:27-31). Faith does not deny the demands of the Law but fulfills it in the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ and His life and death which is the object of faith and basis for justification.

Directly following that declaration Paul enters upon a discussion that is designed to define justification by faith and what is included versus what is excluded.

I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. However, its the point over which the Catholics would disagree with you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And this is where the Catholic would disagree with you. Its not the very same. That like in Moses Faith is given to the believer first is following the model of Abraham in that he has faith. Yet unlike the circumsision as a sign of following the law its a sign of the grace incured and the freedom expressed as a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

Now here is where I am having trouble understanding exactly what you are saying. I understand it is not exactly the same. That I got and never would claim it is exactly the same. I understand that the Roman Catholic perceives that faith is first bestowed but does not Rome believe it is bestowed through the community of the faithful and in addition must be received through request from the church???

In Abraham there is no community of the faithful to receive faith. There is no church to request faith from? Remember, Abraham is given as the model "father" of ALL WHO BELEIVE regardless of what time and era they live. If there is no community of the faithful, no church from which Abraham received faith, then addition of such is excluded from Paul's doctrine of justification by faith.

Furthermore, in Abraham faith and ceremony are separated by 14 years and so there is no vital connection between faith and ceremony for justification. This is another reason why Abraham is used to illustrate what is to be exluded versus included in justification by faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. However, its the point over which the Catholics would disagree with you.

What wouldn't the Catholics disagree with me in regard to this subject? Just because they disagree does not mean they are correct and I am wrong. It is verily simple to demonstrate their hermeneutical applications to Romans 3:1-3 is based upon eisegesis instead of exegesis.

First, where is even the mention of the doctrine of Justification found in Romans 3:1-3??????? NADA!

Second, look at the immediate preceding context where Paul denies that outward circumcision benefits the NATURAL BORN Jew at all unless it is accompanied by inward circumcision - new birth (Rom. 2:25-29).

Third, if outward circumcision does not benefit them at all in regard to salvation then what advantage is circumcision and being a Jew as opposed to being a Gentile? That is the question of the text.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Paul's response has nothing to do with the doctrine of justification. Instead, his response is that the advantage is they have additional light that gentiles do not have:

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

However, is that advantageous since the Jews boasted about in it in Romans 2:23 but only rejected it by unbelief? So Paul begins to deal with a series of arguments that deal first with the NATURAL JEW rejection of God's Word:

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Their rejection does not make God's word none effect but rather confirms the truth of it as the Old Testament Scriptures teach that the NATURAL JEWS will reject it (Deut. 5:29; 29:4). It just proves God is true and every man is a liar.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This leads to the next objection, if that is so, it makes God true, then how can he judge THE NATURAL JEW for making him true:

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

Paul additionally responds to this objection that it would remove the very basis for judgement of the NATURAL JEW in the day of Judgement if their unbelief made the word of God non-effect:

God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

Finally, he deals with the last objection. Well, if the disobedience of the NATURAL JEW justifies God's Word and makes God true, then the more the NATURAL JEW disobeys the more God is glorified, so lets sin that God may be glorified:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

This brings Paul tothe conclusion of his whole series of arguments beginning in Romans 1:19-3:8 and that is to prove the NATURAL MAN both Jew and gentile will not seek God and there is NONE righteous, no, not one:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

The Roman Catholic interpretation of Romans 3:1-3 is bankrupt and wrong and any honest evaluation of the context demonstrates it.

 

[DHK]

The Catholic especially the educated ones are very academic. I've read systematic theology of Thomas Aquinas(Catholic), and Carl Barth(protestant) and its on this level I find many catholics will discuss on. If they see "you are a works based faith" they will laugh and consider you uneducated. Which is a challenge.

Carl Barth isn't a Baptist of course. He is not only a Protestant, he is a very liberal protestant. One of the problems of the Catholics is that they take what they call "very prominent Protestants" such as Carl Barth, and make them representative of what they think is all of Protestantism, including conservative evangelicalism, which is as far from Barthinianism as one can get. I have seen Lori quote from what she calls "prominent Protestants," most of whom who are very liberal, and some of whom are probably not saved. Thus unjust comparisons are made and it takes much time and patience to explain why the comparisons cannot be accepted.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Carl Barth isn't a Baptist of course. He is not only a Protestant, he is a very liberal protestant. One of the problems of the Catholics is that they take what they call "very prominent Protestants" such as Carl Barth, and make them representative of what they think is all of Protestantism, including conservative evangelicalism, which is as far from Barthinianism as one can get. I have seen Lori quote from what she calls "prominent Protestants," most of whom who are very liberal, and some of whom are probably not saved. Thus unjust comparisons are made and it takes much time and patience to explain why the comparisons cannot be accepted.

Well, it is no wonder, because Rome has a very low view of Scripture and so do liberals. By "low view" I mean the scriptures are not recognized by either as final authority. Rome is just like the Jewish theologions of Christ's day, they build hedges of tradition and interpretations of the fathers around the scriptures to the point the scriptures and the traditions have nothing in common with each other.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Well, it is no wonder, because Rome has a very low view of Scripture and so do liberals. By "low view" I mean the scriptures are not recognized by either as final authority. Rome is just like the Jewish theologions of Christ's day, they build hedges of tradition and interpretations of the fathers around the scriptures to the point the scriptures and the traditions have nothing in common with each other.

Well, Dr. Walter, I think that the Catholic Church and even some Protestants don't hold scripture up as the sole authority because scripture never claims that position for itself. However, they all believe that scripture is inspired and authoritative, its just not viewed as the only authority (The argument is usually formed around the difference between the material and formal sufficiency of scripture). Thus, I believe your statement that Rome has a "low view" of scripture is just not very accurate.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. - Isa. 8:20

This text presents the scriptures as the final authority for right and wrong. If you, your church, your denomination, your prophet, etc. do not speak "according to this word" they are to be regarded as having "NO LIGHT" in them. That, my friend, is the utmost claim as final authority.

Well, Dr. Walter, I think that the Catholic Church and even some Protestants don't hold scripture up as the sole authority because scripture never claims that position for itself. However, they all believe that scripture is inspired and authoritative, its just not viewed as the only authority (The argument is usually formed around the difference between the material and formal sufficiency of scripture). Thus, I believe your statement that Rome has a "low view" of scripture is just not very accurate.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. - Isa. 8:20

This text presents the scriptures as the final authority for right and wrong. If you, your church, your denomination, your prophet, etc. do not speak "according to this word" they are to be regarded as having "NO LIGHT" in them. That, my friend, is the utmost claim as final authority.

Nope - the verse never says that scripture is the final authority - it simply says (at best) that it is authoritative. I agree with that. Unfortunately, the scripture that existed at that particular time would have been the Old Testament which means that by your metric, my dear Doctor, the only authoritative scripture is the Old Testament as the New Testament did not yet exist. I don't think that even you would hold to that.

You can quote all of the scripture that you like, yet nowhere does scripture state that it is the SOLE authority - its simply is not there - and I defy you to show me - chapter and verse please. However, there is one place where scripture reveals where this sole authority resides:

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I'm sure you know what a pillar and foundation are used for.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

Nope - the verse never says that scripture is the final authority - it simply says (at best) that it is authoritative. I agree with that. Unfortunately, the scripture that existed at that particular time would have been the Old Testament which means that by your metric, my dear Doctor, the only authoritative scripture is the Old Testament as the New Testament did not yet exist. I don't think that even you would hold to that.

There are some Scriptures that are "timeless truths," that is no matter where they are placed in Scripture, no matter what the context is, they are applicable for all generations. Let's look at a few examples.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--If this was in the OT or the NT, the truth would be the same regardless of context. All men are sinners. All men have sinned. It is a timeless truth.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--The same truth can be found here. No matter who you are, your heart is deceitful. In fact it is terribly wicked. All men's hearts are. It is a timeless truth though it is written in the OT, it still applies to us today.

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--Three rhetorical questions. has the answer changed since the last 2,700 years. No it hasn't. The same truth is the same. It is a timeless truth, just as applicable today as it was in Jeremiah's time.

Isaiah 41:10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
--This wonderful promise is still the same for those that are saved; for those that love God. It hasn't changed. It is a timeless truth.

There are many such promises, wonderful truths of the Word of God.
And this verse happens to be one of them:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

You can quote all of the scripture that you like, yet nowhere does scripture state that it is the SOLE authority - its simply is not there - and I defy you to show me - chapter and verse please. However, there is one place where scripture reveals where this sole authority resides:

That would only show your ignorance of Scripture. It would only show that you haven't looked hard enough.

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

First, Paul was writing to Timothy at the church at Ephesus. It was a local church, an assembly as the word church (ekklesia) means.

Secondly the local church, in its own community is the foundation of the truth. The truth is the Bible. Every thing that we need to know is contained in the Word of God. It is our sole authority. There is no other authority. It is our foundation. Every Bible-believing church is based on the Word of God.

Third, the pillar is a structure that upholds the roof. This was no doubt an allusion to the great temple of Diana or Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world, which was located in Ephesus. It had a number of great pillars holding up the porch which overhung the main roof. They were large strong pillars. The church is a pillar. It holds up the truth--the Bible, the Word of God. Everyone can see it, can hear it. It is our sole authority. It alone is proclaimed by the church (the local church in our community). That is what our church is noted for--the preaching of the Word of God. That is our authority--our only authority.

If you want another authority go to another school--biology, etc.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I knew you would respond to this text that way. Soooo, I saved the best to last. If you will examine Isaiah 8:14-18 you will see it is a Messanic promise in regard not only to Christ but the NEW TESTAMENT DISCIPLES of Christ. For example, Isa. 8:14-15 is often quoted in the New Testament and applied directly to Christ. Isaiah 8:16-18 is directly applied to the apostles as you can clearly see in Hebrews 2:3-4,12.

Isaiah 8:16 is an Old Testament prophecy that the Biblical canon will be completed under the apostles of Christ who were given as signs unto Israel (Isa. 8:17-18). The "law" is the common designation for the whole Old Testament Scriptures and the "testimony" is exactly the term the last living apostle used to describe the last book of the New Tesament (Rev. 1:2; 19:10) and placed a final anathema on those who added to it (Rev. 22:18-19).

This prophecy was understood by Christ and in the upper room discourse the Holy Spirit was promised to lead them into all truth, bring to remembrance the things of Jesus and those things that will come. In John 17:20 Jesus promises that it is through the words of the apostles that future saints would come to Christ (New Testament Scriptures). As you know all the New Testament was either written by one of the Apostles or under their supervision by an associate under them. The apostles knew they were providing the inspired scripture as final authority (I Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15).

After predicting the completion of the Biblical canon (Isa 8:16 "bind up the testimony and seal the law AMONG MY DISCIPLES") the next revelation from God that is expected is Christ's second advent:

"And I will wait upon the LORD that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I WILL LOOK FOR HIM." - Isa. 8:17.

Finally, the Bible reads as a completed book with a beginning and ending that compliment each other:

"In the beginning God created..." - Gen. 1:1
"And I saw a new heaven and new earth" - Rev. 21:1

The gathering together of waters he called seas..- Gen
"And the sea is no more" - Rev.

"The Darkness He called night" - Gen.
"There shall be no night there" - Rev.

God made two great lights (sun and moon) - Gen
"The city had no need of the Sun nor the Moon" - Rev

"In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" - Gen.
"Death shall be no more" - Rev

" Cursed is the ground for your sake" - Gen
"There shall be no more curse" - Rev

"I will greatly multiply they paint" - Gen
"Nether shal there be pain any more" Rev

Satan appears as the deceiver of mankind - Gen
Satan disappears into the lake of fire forever - Rev

They were driven from the tree of llife - Gen
Tree of life reappears - Rev

They were driven from God's presence -Gen
They shall look upon his face - Rev

Man's primeval home was by a river -Gen.
Man's eternal home will be beside a river - Rev.

Genesis tells how everything began and Revelation tells how everything ends. Revelation takes us from the end of apostolic era to the new heaven and earth.

Therefore, Isaiah 8:20 is planted in a context that includes the FULL REVELATION from God and specifically includes the very terms in Isaiah 8:16 of the predicted completed Biblical canon. So my friend, you are wrong. This text is absolute claim of the final authority of the Scriptures OVER EVERY MAN and the Pope included and every church, every counsel, every human on earth. If "THEY" do not speak according to "THIS WORD" it is because they have no light in them as "THIS WORD" is the standard of LIGHT and thus FINAL in authority.

Nope - the verse never says that scripture is the final authority - it simply says (at best) that it is authoritative. I agree with that. Unfortunately, the scripture that existed at that particular time would have been the Old Testament which means that by your metric, my dear Doctor, the only authoritative scripture is the Old Testament as the New Testament did not yet exist. I don't think that even you would hold to that.

You can quote all of the scripture that you like, yet nowhere does scripture state that it is the SOLE authority - its simply is not there - and I defy you to show me - chapter and verse please. However, there is one place where scripture reveals where this sole authority resides:

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I'm sure you know what a pillar and foundation are used for.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

I knew you would respond to this text that way. Soooo, I saved the best to last. If you will examine Isaiah 8:14-18 you will see it is a Messanic promise in regard not only to Christ but the NEW TESTAMENT DISCIPLES of Christ. For example, Isa. 8:14-15 is often quoted in the New Testament and applied directly to Christ. Isaiah 8:16-18 is directly applied to the apostles as you can clearly see in Hebrews 2:3-4,12.

Isaiah 8:16 is an Old Testament prophecy that the Biblical canon will be completed under the apostles of Christ who were given as signs unto Israel (Isa. 8:17-18). The "law" is the common designation for the whole Old Testament Scriptures and the "testimony" is exactly the term the last living apostle used to describe the last book of the New Tesament (Rev. 1:2; 19:10) and placed a final anathema on those who added to it (Rev. 22:18-19).

This prophecy was understood by Christ and in the upper room discourse the Holy Spirit was promised to lead them into all truth, bring to remembrance the things of Jesus and those things that will come. In John 17:20 Jesus promises that it is through the words of the apostles that future saints would come to Christ (New Testament Scriptures). As you know all the New Testament was either written by one of the Apostles or under their supervision by an associate under them. The apostles knew they were providing the inspired scripture as final authority (I Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15).

After predicting the completion of the Biblical canon (Isa 8:16 "bind up the testimony and seal the law AMONG MY DISCIPLES") the next revelation from God that is expected is Christ's second advent:

"And I will wait upon the LORD that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I WILL LOOK FOR HIM." - Isa. 8:17.

Finally, the Bible reads as a completed book with a beginning and ending that compliment each other:

This is your best - that scripture is a complete book? Clearly it is. But by accepting that completed book AND the canon of the NT as it is, you must tacitly accept the authority of those who put the canon together and that, my dear doctor, was the Catholic Church. Which that takes you right back to....

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I noticed that you completely ignored that verse. Hmmm...

"In the beginning God created..." - Gen. 1:1
"And I saw a new heaven and new earth" - Rev. 21:1

The gathering together of waters he called seas..- Gen
"And the sea is no more" - Rev.

"The Darkness He called night" - Gen.
"There shall be no night there" - Rev.

God made two great lights (sun and moon) - Gen
"The city had no need of the Sun nor the Moon" - Rev

"In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" - Gen.
"Death shall be no more" - Rev

" Cursed is the ground for your sake" - Gen
"There shall be no more curse" - Rev

"I will greatly multiply they paint" - Gen
"Nether shal there be pain any more" Rev

Satan appears as the deceiver of mankind - Gen
Satan disappears into the lake of fire forever - Rev

They were driven from the tree of llife - Gen
Tree of life reappears - Rev

They were driven from God's presence -Gen
They shall look upon his face - Rev

Man's primeval home was by a river -Gen.
Man's eternal home will be beside a river - Rev.

Amen!

Genesis tells how everything began and Revelation tells how everything ends. Revelation takes us from the end of apostolic era to the new heaven and earth.

Therefore, Isaiah 8:20 is planted in a context that includes the FULL REVELATION from God and specifically includes the very terms in Isaiah 8:16 of the predicted completed Biblical canon. So my friend, you are wrong.

So you say - but you've yet to prove that from scripture. The only thing you have shown thus far is that scripture is authoritative. With that, I agree.

This text is absolute claim of the final authority of the Scriptures OVER EVERY MAN and the Pope included and every church, every counsel, every human on earth. If "THEY" do not speak according to "THIS WORD" it is because they have no light in them as "THIS WORD" is the standard of LIGHT and thus FINAL in authority.

If something is accepted as a standard then it is by definition authoritative. However, that in no way makes it the SOLE authority. I would posit that Sola Scripture was adopted rather recently as the “de facto” standard for most (but not all) of Protestantism.

Ultimately, within all of the scripture that you just quoted, nowhere do we see scripture claiming for itself sole authority - nowhere. The only place where I see that idea stated is in your own personal and fallible interpretation of what scripture says. Which brings up another problem...

The implementation of Sola Scriptura depends solely (no pun intended) on the fallible interpretation of men, many of whom differ on the big issues of the faith. God gave us a way around this...

(Matt. 18:15-18)
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence or two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector. Truly, I say to you, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

There is your final authority my dear doctor, imparted directly from Jesus to the apostles - the apostles, who themselves wrote, taught, and handed on what Christ said to them and who themselves built-up the Church that Christ founded upon Peter.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend,

"THEY" and "THEM" refers to MEN while "this Word" refers to God's completed and final revelation to men. Is the Pope a man? Are counsels made up of men? Are the churches of God composed of men? This text claims final authority over MEN's opinions and words. If you are not a man then you are exempt. If your church is not made up of mankind then they are exempt. If the pope is not a man then he is exempt. But if "THEY" are men they are subject to "this word" and if they contradict, change it, or ignore it, "IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM."

Rome had nothing to do with the canonization of Scripture. It was canonized by the apostolic churches no later than 150 A.D. and there were already two translations in (Old Latin, Old Syric) before Jerome was in diapers or the counsel of Nicea was even an imagination in someone's mind.

The true churches of God whom Rome later called "Anabaptists" were the apostolic churches of Christ persecuted by apostate churches as early as 250A.D. and these churches condemned the old Harlot and her marriage to the Roman state at the time of Constantine.

Rome has a consistent and long track record of violating Isaiah 8:20 and they are in part the apostasy predicted by the Apostles with an "anti-christ" ruling over it.

This is your best - that scripture is a complete book? Clearly it is. But by accepting that completed book AND the canon of the NT as it is, you must tacitly accept the authority of those who put the canon together and that, my dear doctor, was the Catholic Church. Which that takes you right back to....

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I noticed that you completely ignored that verse. Hmmm...



Amen!



So you say - but you've yet to prove that from scripture. The only thing you have shown thus far is that scripture is authoritative. With that, I agree.



If something is accepted as a standard then it is by definition authoritative. However, that in no way makes it the SOLE authority. I would posit that Sola Scripture was adopted rather recently as the “de facto” standard for most (but not all) of Protestantism.

Ultimately, within all of the scripture that you just quoted, nowhere do we see scripture claiming for itself sole authority - nowhere. The only place where I see that idea stated is in your own personal and fallible interpretation of what scripture says. Which brings up another problem...

The implementation of Sola Scriptura depends solely (no pun intended) on the fallible interpretation of men, many of whom differ on the big issues of the faith. God gave us a way around this...

(Matt. 18:15-18)
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence or two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector. Truly, I say to you, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

There is your final authority my dear doctor, imparted directly from Jesus to the apostles - the apostles, who themselves wrote, taught, and handed on what Christ said to them and who themselves built-up the Church that Christ founded upon Peter.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is your final authority my dear doctor, imparted directly from Jesus to the apostles - the apostles, who themselves wrote, taught, and handed on what Christ said to them and who themselves built-up the Church that Christ founded upon Peter.

You want to talk about Matthew 16:18-19 and Peter and the Keys of the kingdom (not the church). I will refer you this article that I believe completely destroys Rome's interpretation of this passage.

http://s.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

http://s2.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

The Article begins on page 166. This book is over 300 pages so you will have to wait a little bit so that it can fully down load before you will be able to scroll down to page 166. I think the article by Pastor Fenison is irrefutable if "honesty" is the criteria for examining the evidence he presents.

 

[lori4dogs]

In the bible, word many times refers to 'a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles'. When a prophet spoke it was the word of God even though their speakings written down later as scripture. An example: "For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

 

[DHK]

In the bible, word many times refers to 'a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles'. When a prophet spoke it was the word of God even though their speakings written down later as scripture. An example: "For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

That is the testimony of Jeremiah. Only that which is written in Scriptures--those 66 books of the Bible that we have are inspired of God. No other book nor even writing of any prophet or other prophet is inspired. What God inspired is only those words which are contained in our present Bible and that in the original MSS.

 

[BillySunday1935]

You want to talk about Matthew 16:18-19 and Peter and the Keys of the kingdom (not the church). I will refer you this article that I believe completely destroys Rome's interpretation of this passage.

http://s.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

http://s2.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

The Article begins on page 166. This book is over 300 pages so you will have to wait a little bit so that it can fully down load before you will be able to scroll down to page 166. I think the article by Pastor Fenison is irrefutable if "honesty" is the criteria for examining the evidence he presents.

This is nothing more than historical revisionism. The Church has been here for +2,000 years and there is irrefutable historical evidence to prove it. History is what it is. Surely you have read the Early Church Fathers. Now, how about addressing what I stated in my previous post?

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is nothing more than historical revisionism. The Church has been here for +2,000 years and there is irrefutable historical evidence to prove it. History is what it is. Surely you have read the Early Church Fathers. Now, how about addressing what I stated in my previous post?

Peace!

Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you did not even read it but are more than willing to cast judgement out of pure and complete ignorance of the article. Three quarters of this article is exegetical and expository that presents exegetical and contextual obstacles to Rome's interpretation. Only the very last section deals with any historical evidence.

Why don't you read it first before commenting. It is obvious you did not read the first three quarters of the article.