Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Dr. Walter]

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]).

Isaian 8:14-20 is not speaking of an isolated Old Testament statement by Isaiah. It is set in a clear and undeniable Messanic context. It is referring prophetically to the completion of Biblical revelation and canonization of God's revelation "Bind up....and seal AMONG MY DISCPLES." It is directly applied to the apostles in Hebrews 2. There sufficient and abudant New Testament evidence they understood this prophecy, knew they were fulfilling it and claimed so by using the very word that climaxes the "testimony" of Christ for which the Apostles were appointed to confirm through their words to future believers.

Your argument is not merely weak but absolutely empty of common sense when the context and application are reasonably examined and considered in light of more than sufficient evidence.

 

[BillySunday1935]

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.

Anabaptists? Oh please... So, show me the historic records that back up this statement. You know as well as I that they do not exist!

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.

Please don't tell me that you believe the drivel written in the rag entitled the "Trail of Blood"? The early Churches had various canons - some were similar and some contained heretical books. There was some consensus but it was not universal. It took the the counsels called by Rome to decide which canon was to be adopted. It was ultimately decided by Rome and that, by your acceptance thereof, is what you consider to be authoritative. This is historical fact... cut and dried.

If you don't agree with the canon put together by the Catholoic Church, then, why don't you create your own canon - that's what Martin Luther did so you might as well create one for yourself.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

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.

Hang on a minute there Doc... By your own metric [Sola Scripture], I need not read anything other than scripture in order to recognize the sole authority regarding the area of faith and morals for the Christian. Are you waffling here or what? Me thinkest thou art!

Peace!

 

[lori4dogs]

Isaian 8:14-20 is not speaking of an isolated Old Testament statement by Isaiah. It is set in a clear and undeniable Messanic context. It is referring prophetically to the completion of Biblical revelation and canonization of God's revelation "Bind up....and seal AMONG MY DISCPLES." It is directly applied to the apostles in Hebrews 2. There sufficient and abudant New Testament evidence they understood this prophecy, knew they were fulfilling it and claimed so by using the very word that climaxes the "testimony" of Christ for which the Apostles were appointed to confirm through their words to future believers.

Your argument is not merely weak but absolutely empty of common sense when the context and application are reasonably examined and considered in light of more than sufficient evidence.

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" 1 Thess. 2:13.

It would seem here that the written word and oral teaching are synonymous.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" 1 Thess. 2:13.

It would seem here that the written word and oral teaching are synonymous.

Isa. 8:16-20 is prophetic that Biblical revelation would be finished "among my disciples" (v. 16) who are the apostles (v. 18) and this is applied to in Hebrews 2:3-4,12. The only oral tradition that is inspired is from the 12 apostles and those under their direction, and that oral as well as written expression ceased to exist when the last living apostle, completed the final capstone of written revelation in the book of Revelation.

You were incapable of responding to the exegesis by Bro. Fenison of Matthew 16:18-19 that thoroughly exposed the perverted Roman heresy of apostolic succession. Last, Isa. 8:16-20 and prediction of BINDING and SEALING of all Biblical revelation also exposes the Apostate Roman doctrine of apostolic succession and Rome's teaching of continued revelation.
In addition, Pastor Fenison has another book on his site where he lays down the seven Biblical tests for prophets which all true prophets measure up to. However, the false papal prophet has repeatedly failed several of these Biblical tests of a prophet, thus once again, demonstrating the Romish doctrine of apostolic succession as an apostate doctrine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hang on a minute there Doc... By your own metric [Sola Scripture], I need not read anything other than scripture in order to recognize the sole authority regarding the area of faith and morals for the Christian. Are you waffling here or what? Me thinkest thou art!

Peace!

You perfectly express the Roman Catholic ignorance of Scripture and arrogance that exalts itself about Scripture and thus above God. Interpretations of scripture are judged by scripture in keeping with Isaiah 8:20.
Isaiah 8:20 does not condemn interpretation of Scripture but only they must harmozine with scripture or there is no light in them. Pastor Fenison presented an intepretation of Scripture that harmonizes with Scripture whereas the Roman Catholic interpretation does not harmonize but contradicts scripture. Therefore, Isaiah 8:20 would judge Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 originating from those who have "no light in them" but you or Rome and its best exegetes cannot demonstrate Pastor Fenison's interpretation violates the Isaiah 8:20 principle. So if ignorance is bliss, Rome is blissed above all.

 

[DHK]

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" 1 Thess. 2:13.

It would seem here that the written word and oral teaching are synonymous.

Is that like digging up the oral and written tradition of Pope Joan?
Your misinterpretation of tradition in the Books of Thessalonians is ludicrous, and the veracity of the existence of Pope Joan has more credibility among historians and in tradition, than your above post.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There are some historical problems with "The Trail of Blood" by Dr. J.M. Carroll, however, his position is historically viable and plenty of historians previous to him and after provide affirmation.

However, the New Testament predicts essential characterics that define both post-New Testament churches and predicted apostate Christianity.
Rome fits every predicted trait of apostate Christianity whereas those hated "anabaptists" fit every trait of predicted Post-New Testament churches of God.

1. Apostate Christianity kill other professed Christians - Jn. 16:1-3; Rev. 17:6
2. Apostate Christianity teaches "another gospel" of legalism
3. Apostate Christianity unites with secular state - Rev. 17:1-5
4. Apostate Christianity smears and defames apostolic Christianity as heretical - Mt. 5:11-13.

Rome has all the marks of being the real predicted "heretics" whereas those defamed by Rome are New Testament Christiantiy.

Secular history is uninspired thus not free from human bias; It is incomplete and therefore insufficient; It is often erroneous and Roman historians are famous for their mishandling of scriptures, history and truth.

Anabaptists? Oh please... So, show me the historic records that back up this statement. You know as well as I that they do not exist!



Please don't tell me that you believe the drivel written in the rag entitled the "Trail of Blood"? The early Churches had various canons - some were similar and some contained heretical books. There was some consensus but it was not universal. It took the the counsels called by Rome to decide which canon was to be adopted. It was ultimately decided by Rome and that, by your acceptance thereof, is what you consider to be authoritative. This is historical fact... cut and dried.

If you don't agree with the canon put together by the Catholoic Church, then, why don't you create your own canon - that's what Martin Luther did so you might as well create one for yourself.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Is that like digging up the oral and written tradition of Pope Joan?
Your misinterpretation of tradition in the Books of Thessalonians is ludicrous, and the veracity of the existence of Pope Joan has more credibility among historians and in tradition, than your above post.

In Matthew 28;19-20 the oral traditions of faith and practice by Christ were passed to the apostles who in turn provided the basis of discipleship for new beleivers (Acts 2:41-42). Thus, what Christ committed to the apostles is called "the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:41). In Acts 15 the early churches (Antioch, Jerusalem) settled a doctrinal difference and letters were given to Paul to take back to Antioch and then that written expression was used to confirm the apostolic churches in "the faith" established through the oral traditions of the Apostles.

As the "oral" traditions were being challenged by heretics Paul and other apostles responded by written defenses that eventually became the New Testament Scriptures and fulfillment of Isaiah 8:16-20 which were all provided "among my disciples" (Isa. 8:16) thus all written revelation was bound and sealed by the last living apostle who explicitly used the same term as Isaiah 8:16 to express that portion of God's Word that gave "testimony" of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:2; Rev. 19:10) and then SEALED it intentionally in Revelation 22:18-19 as directed in Isaiah 8:16.

The canonization of the Scripture was already completed before 150 A.D. by the apostolic churches and found expression in the two earliest translations (1) The old Latin in the west and (2) the Syric in the east.

Harlot Rome came along several centuries later and had to have another canonization because they wanted to include what the Old Testament people of God excluded (Apocrypha) in order to teach their heresies as they persecuted the true apostolic churches under a variety of names and perverse accusations. The old harlot added Paganistic doctrines and practices in a consistent stream from the fourth to the sixteenth century.

 

[lori4dogs]

Is that like digging up the oral and written tradition of Pope Joan?
Your misinterpretation of tradition in the Books of Thessalonians is ludicrous, and the veracity of the existence of Pope Joan has more credibility among historians and in tradition, than your above post.

What is ludicrous is you thinking that 'pope Joan' ever existed other than as a legend. You have stated before on this board that 'her' existence is a proven fact' but when asked to provide that evidence all we got was a link to 'the legend of pope Joan'. You think it is OK to continue to bring up this up but if I mention Chick Publications you threaten to have me banned as a troll.

 

[DHK]

What is ludicrous is you thinking that 'pope Joan' ever existed other than as a legend. You have stated before on this board that 'her' existence is a proven fact' but when asked to provide that evidence all we got was a link to 'the legend of pope Joan'. You think it is OK to continue to bring up this up but if I mention Chick Publications you threaten to have me banned as a troll.

There are credible sources to Pope Joan.
There have been some that used to use Chick publications in the past, but I don't know of anyone on the board that presently uses Chick Publications as a credible source for their knowledge of the Catholic faith or otherwise. Therefore to accuse those on the board for doing so is a false allegation. It is a personal attack on those on this board.

If you can't see the difference in attacking those who write on this board, the posters themselves, and writing about someone how existed in history, then there is something wrong isn't there?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

I was out all weekend. I think that you percieve it to be one aspect the Catholic Church would say yes both and. It's received both ways. And as for the 14 years its inconsiquential as to when it comes in operation. God promised Abraham that he would have a child it doesn't matter that the promise occured when he was 80. Just like the Holy of Holy's wasn't established until Moses. However, God intended to dwell among his people.

 

[BillySunday1935]

You perfectly express the Roman Catholic ignorance of Scripture and arrogance that exalts itself about Scripture and thus above God.

According to who - you? Let me get this straight. I don't agree with your personal and fallible interpretation of scripture therefore, I am ignorant of scripture, arrogant and exalt myself about scripture and above God. Right... That's quite the scholoarly response there, doc.

Interpretations of scripture are judged by scripture in keeping with Isaiah 8:20.

Then why are there soooo many different interpretations of scripture? There are as many as there are Protestants.

Isaiah 8:20 does not condemn interpretation of Scripture but only they must harmozine with scripture or there is no light in them. Pastor Fenison presented an intepretation of Scripture that harmonizes with Scripture whereas the Roman Catholic interpretation does not harmonize but contradicts scripture.

Well, first you fail in your attempt to support the man-made doctrine of Sola Scripture, so now you are promoting the writtings of some pastor named Fenison as authoritative. Need I point out once again that by this action you, my dear doctor, are providing ample evidence that you do not REALLY follow the doctrine yourself? Yes!

Therefore, Isaiah 8:20 would judge Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 originating from those who have "no light in them" but you or Rome and its best exegetes cannot demonstrate Pastor Fenison's interpretation violates the Isaiah 8:20 principle. So if ignorance is bliss, Rome is blissed above all.

How original. Now, I seem to remember that you were going to provide me with scripture claiming for itself the SOLE authority for the christian regarding matters of faith and morals.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

At least I didn't mention John Crossian. :laugh:

I understand your point. However, from another view there its very difficult to quote from a fundalmentalist on a systematic theological work. Like you can with Aquinas or Barth. Most Fundalmentalist deal with aspects of a systematic theology without engaging a whole process. In fact, to get this type of work you have to got to germany or france. In fact, Since there really isn't a singular modern body of works that can define a fundalmental systematic theology we have to comment on an amalgamation of different works to even touch the serface. Such as the Niagara Bible Conference, the 12 book works of the early Princeton theological seminary which deals with the 5 fundamentals. And for the most part baptist seem to stay away from the higher critisms which give to the Catholic and other protestants a sence " of lack of education". However, this is an unfair treatment considering strides made at more modern universities such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Liberty, etc...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

I think the problem here is you equate Low view of Scripture with higher Critism. Which is an inacurrate observation. In Fact Catholics view scripture as authoritative and is used in all councils and decision making efforts. I think you would be supprised by scripture use of Catholics.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

You must do better than that Isaiah 8:20 is a specific statement regarding Torah and this prophesy

6 "Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,

7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the River —
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks

8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O Immanuel [c] !"

9 Raise the war cry, [d] you nations, and be shattered!
Listen, all you distant lands.
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!

10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted;
propose your plan, but it will not stand,
for God is with us. [e]

Fear God
11 The LORD spoke to me with his strong hand upon me, warning me not to follow the way of this people. He said:
12 "Do not call conspiracy
everything that these people call conspiracy [f] ;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.

13 The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread,

14 and he will be a sanctuary;
but for both houses of Israel he will be
a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.

15 Many of them will stumble;
they will fall and be broken,
they will be snared and captured."

16 Bind up the testimony
and seal up the law among my disciples.

17 I will wait for the LORD,
who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob.
I will put my trust in him.

18 Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

So it actually excludes the books of profesy, History, Widsom etc... Not to mention the entire new testiment. Otherwise you quote the passage out of context. Like in revelation where it says not to add or take away from this book. Its speaking about revelation as all apocalyptic literature is used that way.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are some historical problems with "The Trail of Blood" by Dr. J.M. Carroll, however, his position is historically viable and plenty of historians previous to him and after provide affirmation.

However, the New Testament predicts essential characterics that define both post-New Testament churches and predicted apostate Christianity.
Rome fits every predicted trait of apostate Christianity whereas those hated "anabaptists" fit every trait of predicted Post-New Testament churches of God.

1. Apostate Christianity kill other professed Christians - Jn. 16:1-3; Rev. 17:6
2. Apostate Christianity teaches "another gospel" of legalism
3. Apostate Christianity unites with secular state - Rev. 17:1-5
4. Apostate Christianity smears and defames apostolic Christianity as heretical - Mt. 5:11-13.

Rome has all the marks of being the real predicted "heretics" whereas those defamed by Rome are New Testament Christiantiy.

Secular history is uninspired thus not free from human bias; It is incomplete and therefore insufficient; It is often erroneous and Roman historians are famous for their mishandling of scriptures, history and truth.

I disagree with Carol and Landmarkism. I like history and there is no support especially when you actually study the differing Christian sects.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Is that like digging up the oral and written tradition of Pope Joan?
Your misinterpretation of tradition in the Books of Thessalonians is ludicrous, and the veracity of the existence of Pope Joan has more credibility among historians and in tradition, than your above post.

I saw a history channel presentation about Pope Joan. They never admit during the show that she definately existed but gave support for the possibilities. However, to be honest. I wouldn't be supprised. But its still speculation. Just like Cameron saying he found the sarcophogus of Jesus Christ because he found one with the inscription, Yeshua ben Yoseph.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You must do better than that Isaiah 8:20 is a specific statement regarding Torah and this prophesy So it actually excludes the books of profesy, History, Widsom etc... Not to mention the entire new testiment. Otherwise you quote the passage out of context. Like in revelation where it says not to add or take away from this book. Its speaking about revelation as all apocalyptic literature is used that way.

Did you even bother reading the detailed responses I have already given to these same responses by others? Apparently not. However, for your sake, I will simply summarize them and hope you will go back and read the detailed responses I have already given.

1. This is a clear Messanic passage (Isa. 8:14-18) quoted in the New Testament
2. The words "among my disciples" and "disciples are for signs" are clear applications to the Apostles (Heb. 2)
3. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would bring all things to remembers, things in the future, and use their words in the redemption of saints to come.
4. The Apostles were fully aware that their writings were inspired and they were providing a standard to determine truth from error
5. The last living apostles uses the exact term "testimony" in Isa. 8:16 to describe the nature of Revlelation (Rev. 1:2) and prophecy (Rev. 19:10) as well as intentionally does exactly what is commanded in Isa. 8:16 "bind....seal" in Rev. 22:18-19
6. The wording in Isaiah 8:20 should be understood as a general principle WHENEVER and WHEREVER men (they, them) oppose God's Word that the absence of light is in "them" not in God's Word -


The above is merely a summary of the evidence I have already provided.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I disagree with Carol and Landmarkism. I like history and there is no support especially when you actually study the differing Christian sects.

Your absolutley right as long as you make Roman monks your final authority for history. You are absolutely wrong if you have a discerning mind in your approach of history. From your responses above I can see why you have problems.