Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[DHK]

DHK,

I know exactly what Dr. Geisler's "alone" refers to. And it represents an "inference" on the part of Dr. Geisler. As David Anders said, neither Scripture, a prophet, or an Angel of God, nor God Himself revealed to us the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That's why Catholics, remaining true to the Deposit of Faith, reject it.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
--In our church we preach the same message that Paul preached. Our church is patterned after the NT churches, and we have pastors and church government that works in the same manner as the NT churches did.
This cannot be said true of the RCC. The reason it holds true for our church is that we follow the principle of sola scriptura and allow the Bible to guide us in all things.
The RCC does not have the NT message of salvation. It has strayed from that message, and preaches something completely different. Christ nor the apostles would never recognize it nor condone it.

What is the "Deposit of Faith"? As far as I can tell, it is the teaching of man, and not of God.
Are you pitting man's teaching against God's? And thus declaring God to be inferior to man? Christ condemned the Pharisees for such things.

Jesus said:
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Simply put, the Scriptures nowhere state what it is that you and Dr. Geisler are trying to draw from the texts. They didn't say it back when you were convinced of your friends' illegitimate arguments years ago. And they don't say it now.

Sola scriptura is one of the most clearly taught doctrines of the Bible. I commend Bob Ryan in his defense of this doctrine seeing he is SDA. If an SDA can see this the RCC and others should be able to see the same thing. Wouldn't you agree? He is not going to the "Great Controversy," and other writings by EGW to support his beliefs, but rather the Bible, which is the nature of sola scriptura. If one cannot do that then their doctrines are not of the Bible. And the consequence?
We may conclude: "there is no light in 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.

As it was with the Bereans (Acts 17:11) it is very important to check everything against God's Word. That is precisely what sola scriptura is.

I have read accounts of the process of conversion to Christianity offered by some Atheists and some Jews. In these accounts it is frequently the case that these converts recognize the obvious fact that Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible and that it clearly does not mean the same thing to everybody who claims to follow it.

In every case in the NT every person that ever came to Christ came to Christ because of the preaching of the Word, that is "only the Word," which is sola scriptura. Nothing else, no other appeal was made. It was always the Word of God. Examine Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost. It is filled with references from the OT--appeals to scripture.

Further, only when the authority of the Church was rejected in Western Europe did Sola Scriptura become such a popular concept among those who deserted their Catholic heritage. It represented an attempt on the part of those who were deserting Christ's Church to force-fit another authority into the space which had previously been occupied by an entirely different thing: the Catholic Church.

You make a priori assumptions that are not true and cannot be proven to be true. And when your premise is false all that follows is false. For example in your above statement, "only when the authority of the Church was rejected..."
There was no "Church" until the fourth century when Constantine took Christianity and made it the state religion of the day. At that time the RCC began. It had no beginning with the apostles. That is myth. The Mormons contend that they had their origins with Adam and can trace their lineage back to Adam. That also is myth. One cannot make an unproven assertion as a premise, believe it to be true (when it is false) and then build his entire foundation on it. Yet that is what you have done.
For the first three centuries there was no "Church" only "churches."
Paul went on 3 missionary journeys and established over 100 churches, not a "Church."
He wrote 13 epistles, all of them were to a local church or a pastor of a local church, but never to "The Church." It never existed in the first century. No such concept was understood.

 

[DHK]

Yet even during the time of the Great Schism, the various Orthodox Churches didn't appeal to Sola Scriptura. And to this day they are seen as Churches with valid Sacraments and a true claim to Apostolic Succession. And we pray for our mutual reconciliation.

All "Biblical churches" throughout the ages have always believed in sola scriptura, that is made their appeal to scriptura. This is easily shown through an objective study of church history, not the biased history of Catholicism.
There are no sacraments in the Bible.
There is no Apostolic succession. The last apostle was Matthias. The qualification of an apostle was that he had to have seen the risen Lord, personally. No one fits that description today.
The apostles were also identified by their ability to work miracles and signs and wonders.
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--No one has that apostolic authority today.

But ultimately, what baffles me is this claim: "There is never any other authority referred to."? Such a statement is simply anything but the truth.

The whole point of the Bible is focused upon the authority of Christ.

Christ gave his authority to the apostles, which wrote the Word. In the Word of God we have His Authority and all that we need to know about God and salvation. The authority is in God's revelation to man. It is His revelation to mankind. God gave His Word, the Bible, to the churches, not the other way around.

GK Chesterton described idolatry as "the preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it symbolizes." Now, I am not accusing you of idolatry. Please understand that. I am, however, asking you to consider how, from my perspective, it seems as though you're denying Christ's authority as well as that of the Apostles for the sake of the maintenance of your doctrine: Are you not preferring the Scriptures to Christ? Doesn't your statement "There is never any other authority referred to." not put Christ in the backseat with the Apostles so that the Scriptures can take the wheel?

Christ left us the Scriptures. Without the Scriptures we would not know Christ.
Jesus said to His apostles:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
--This verse refers to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit would bring everything that Christ had taught them back to their memories that they would be able to write them down for our learning.

Another example. People put much importance on their "experiences." This is particularly true with the Charismatic movement, but it is also true in the RCC, as they look throughout their history to canonize saints because of their "experiences."
What did Peter say?
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--Peter is saying that he is not telling them fables or myths or stories here. And then he relates the most marvelous experience that anyone could ever have. He tells them of his experience seeing Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and hearing God's voice from Heaven! What a tremendous experience.
And then?
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
--He tells his readers that greater than the greatest of all experiences, being with the glorified Christ, is the Bible itself. We have a more sure word of prophecy, he says. You can trust this book even more than such an experience that I had. It is the Word of God that is trustworthy. It is our guide.

Your statement is so problematic for a million reasons because He, His very Person, is the authority of the Church. He is the King of the entire Universe and all creation. He is the whole point of everything. And you go so far to uphold your view of the Bible as to say "There is never any other authority referred to." Statements like these and this kind of intractability in general do indeed confuse me.

We are always told to examine everything in the light of His Word. Again, Peter said:
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
Pay attention to:
1. The words spoken before by the prophets (the OT), and
2. The words spoken by us that apostles of the Lord (the NT).
--Pay attention to sola scriptura.

And to re-iterate, beyond His authority, the Apostles, as I've said numerous times, were also "referred to" in authoritative terms. Not only were they granted the authority to bind and loose, they were given the authority to forgive sins.

You misinterpret this verse, and run into obvious problems doing so.
First, the Bible teaches that only God can forgive sins. Man does not have that power.
Second, if man had that power, then any man could forgive sins. Whoever can forgive sins is eligible for "deity." Only God can forgive sins.
--The expression "bind and loose" have nothing to do with forgiving sins, but rather has to do with the business of church discipline.

The Apostles received his authority for just as the Father sent the Son, so the Son sent them as recorded in John 20:20-23. In Luke 10 He says "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me." He gives the very "keys" to St. Peter singularly and to the Apostles collectively, Keys which signify a steward's authority to act on behalf of the King in his absence, incidentally, as the title of this thread says, to be the King's Vicar (which is defined as one who serves as a substitute, agent, or administrative deputy in the absence of an authority).

What does the passage really mean?
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Verse 21 is the Great Commission. It is repeated in every gospel and in Acts 1:8
They were sent with authority to teach and preach the gospel. Different gospels give different aspects of this Commission. For example in Mark it tells them that miraculous signs will accompany them. In Mat.28:18 Jesus tells them that he has "all authority in heaven and in earth," and they would have access to that power. He would be with them always. Here he symbolically breathes on them. But the Holy Spirit would not come until the Day of Pentecost, a few days later.
The remission of sins is a direct benefit of the new covenant. It is not something any man can do. It comes through Jesus Christ.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
--The forgiveness of sins comes only through the shed blood of Christ, and that comes when a person trusts Christ as His Savior and at no other time. Christ was offered for sins only once. "The sacrifice of the mass" as you know is a misnomer. Priests and others cannot forgive sins; only Christ can, and that is because He shed his blood and paid the penalty for our sins.

The forgiveness of sins comes through the gospel that is preached. The apostles obeyed the Great Commission, and went everywhere preaching the gospel which brought forgiveness sins.
Everyone of us who preach the gospel has the power to forgive sins (not in ourselves) but in the power of the gospel. For it is through the gospel that a man's sins are forgiven, and that is what Christ meant.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Thus when one preaches the gospel the forgiveness of sin is preached and offered.
It was not some special power the apostles had.

 

[utilyan]

All "Biblical churches" throughout the ages have always believed in sola scriptura, that is made their appeal to scriptura. This is easily shown through an objective study of church history, not the biased history of Catholicism.
There are no sacraments in the Bible.
There is no Apostolic succession. The last apostle was Matthias. The qualification of an apostle was that he had to have seen the risen Lord, personally. No one fits that description today.
The apostles were also identified by their ability to work miracles and signs and wonders.
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--No one has that apostolic authority today.


Christ gave his authority to the apostles, which wrote the Word. In the Word of God we have His Authority and all that we need to know about God and salvation. The authority is in God's revelation to man. It is His revelation to mankind. God gave His Word, the Bible, to the churches, not the other way around.


Christ left us the Scriptures. Without the Scriptures we would not know Christ.
Jesus said to His apostles:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
--This verse refers to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit would bring everything that Christ had taught them back to their memories that they would be able to write them down for our learning.

Another example. People put much importance on their "experiences." This is particularly true with the Charismatic movement, but it is also true in the RCC, as they look throughout their history to canonize saints because of their "experiences."
What did Peter say?
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--Peter is saying that he is not telling them fables or myths or stories here. And then he relates the most marvelous experience that anyone could ever have. He tells them of his experience seeing Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and hearing God's voice from Heaven! What a tremendous experience.
And then?
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
--He tells his readers that greater than the greatest of all experiences, being with the glorified Christ, is the Bible itself. We have a more sure word of prophecy, he says. You can trust this book even more than such an experience that I had. It is the Word of God that is trustworthy. It is our guide.

We are always told to examine everything in the light of His Word. Again, Peter said:
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
Pay attention to:
1. The words spoken before by the prophets (the OT), and
2. The words spoken by us that apostles of the Lord (the NT).
--Pay attention to sola scriptura.


You misinterpret this verse, and run into obvious problems doing so.
First, the Bible teaches that only God can forgive sins. Man does not have that power.
Second, if man had that power, then any man could forgive sins. Whoever can forgive sins is eligible for "deity." Only God can forgive sins.
--The expression "bind and loose" have nothing to do with forgiving sins, but rather has to do with the business of church discipline.

What does the passage really mean?
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Verse 21 is the Great Commission. It is repeated in every gospel and in Acts 1:8
They were sent with authority to teach and preach the gospel. Different gospels give different aspects of this Commission. For example in Mark it tells them that miraculous signs will accompany them. In Mat.28:18 Jesus tells them that he has "all authority in heaven and in earth," and they would have access to that power. He would be with them always. Here he symbolically breathes on them. But the Holy Spirit would not come until the Day of Pentecost, a few days later.
The remission of sins is a direct benefit of the new covenant. It is not something any man can do. It comes through Jesus Christ.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
--The forgiveness of sins comes only through the shed blood of Christ, and that comes when a person trusts Christ as His Savior and at no other time. Christ was offered for sins only once. "The sacrifice of the mass" as you know is a misnomer. Priests and others cannot forgive sins; only Christ can, and that is because He shed his blood and paid the penalty for our sins.

The forgiveness of sins comes through the gospel that is preached. The apostles obeyed the Great Commission, and went everywhere preaching the gospel which brought forgiveness sins.
Everyone of us who preach the gospel has the power to forgive sins (not in ourselves) but in the power of the gospel. For it is through the gospel that a man's sins are forgiven, and that is what Christ meant.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Thus when one preaches the gospel the forgiveness of sin is preached and offered.
It was not some special power the apostles had.

"All "Biblical churches" throughout the ages have always believed in sola scriptura, that is made their appeal to scriptura. This is easily shown through an objective study of church history, not the biased history of Catholicism."


Easily huh? show us what those early Christians were called....Baptists?
The bible and early church fathers keep track of heresies. Show us when the appearance of these strange new Christians called Catholics appear, Show us those early reports of people not practicing Sola Scriptura.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

Not long ago you suggested that I slow down. Now I am asking the same of you. I stood back for a number of days and reflected upon the "heart" of what you and BobRyan were saying. I then responded in an outline format to the essence of your position, Bob's position, and the Scriptural passages you cited. I then took the time to go through Dr. Geisler's article in some detail. Here we are the next day caught up in a whirlwind of references, claims, aspersions, Bible passages, etc. Please, slow down. Nearly everything you say may as well be coming from the young man making a "decision" in that dormitory years ago. In other words, the decision he made was one based upon a certain "assurance" which itself was not demonstrated by your friends, but rather, flowed from the Biblicism they'd already adopted and were then sharing with you.

Realize this, though you may not consider me a Christian, I consider you to be one. I am not trying to insult you or attack you as a person. I consider you a brother in Christ.I am criticizing the illogic of your tradition. I am criticizing the fact that nearly everything you say begs the question (or presumes the very thing in question). But that's a criticism of your argument. So please, slow down. Respond to specific claims and point out why they're confused. I am hear to share my view, yes. But I am also here to listen and learn.

--In our church we preach the same message that Paul preached.

DHK, You’re begging the question. What you’ve described here is the very point in question between us. I, too, used to hold to the same position. I have given you a lot of Scriptural information which caused me to realize that, ironically, as a Baptist who claimed to follow the Bible, I was part of a philosophical and interpretive tradition whose basis for its conception of Christianity was, itself, unBiblical.

What is the "Deposit of Faith"?

This comment also begs the question.

Sola scriptura is one of the most clearly

This comment also begs the question. Further, BobRyan is following Sola Scriptura. He’s applying the very same principle you’re applying. What’s differs are your respective philosophical and interpretive traditions.

As it was with the Bereans (Acts 17:11) it is very important to check everything against God's Word. That is precisely what sola scriptura is.

This comment also begs the question. Further, I addressed the situation with the noble Bereans.

In every case in the NT every person that ever came to Christ came to Christ because of the preaching of the Word.

The “only” that you suggest is there, isn’t.

There was no "Church" until the fourth century.

This comment also begs the question. Further, Constantine did not do such a thing. I have already addressed this point.

It had no beginning with the apostles.

This comment also begs the question. The Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Matthew 16:18, and Acts 20:28 (and a host of other verses) suggest otherwise.

For the first three centuries there was no "Church" only "churches."

This comment also begs the question. Further, St. Ignatius’s witness suggests otherwise, as does the common authority held by the Apostles and recognized by the diverse Christian communities that were popping up all over the place in those days.

Paul went on 3 missionary journeys and established over 100 churches, not a "Church."

This comment also begs the question.

All "Biblical churches" throughout the ages have always believed in sola scriptura

This comment also begs the question. Also, if this were the case, it seems there would be a Bible verse which clearly indicated as much. There isn’t one. Please refer me to an “objective” study of “church history” which would demonstrate this much. Also, if there were only “churches” and no “church,” how can I have “an objective study” of church history at all? All I’d be able to come up with would be the disjointed and chaotic history of sectarianism, which is precisely what “Sola Scriptura” produces. Evidence of this is found right here on this thread where we have both you and Gerhard Ebersoehn as well as BobRyan all claiming to follow the Scriptures yet coming to conclusions concerning some “essential” matters which contradict each other. Still, you cling to this unBiblical doctrine.

There are no sacraments in the Bible.

This comment also begs the question.

There is no Apostolic succession.

Yes, as I’ve said, a “successor” to an Apostle isn’t himself considered an Apostle.

The qualification of an apostle was.

Yes. This is sound Catholic teaching.

--No one has that apostolic authority today.

The Successors to the Apostles exercise the authority which comes with the apostolic office, according to the Church’s divine institution. To deny this without a demonstration of one’s position would be to, once again, beg the question.

Christ gave his authority to the apostles.

It is good to see that you’ve moved away from your previously stated position that the Bible doesn’t refer to any authority other than itself. But for the most part, this comment also begs the question.

The authority is in God's revelation to man.

This comment also begs the question.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,

Yes. Amen.

--This verse refers to the Word of God.

The verse does not say what it is you say it does. It says nothing whatsoever about writing anything down. You are “reading this into” the text. Allow the text to teach you, DHK. Don’t demand that it say something it doesn’t say at all. For doing otherwise for the sake of the maintenance of your preferred doctrine is to beg the question.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word

This comment also begs the question.

Pay attention to:.

I have. I once inherited it as a “tradition” of my faith community. I realized, though, that it was not divinely revealed in Scripture or anywhere else. Paying attention to it is what led me to reject it. On the other hand, had I desperately sought to uphold it despite what the Bible says, I’d have been, as you are, begging the question.

You misinterpret this verse.

This comment also begs the question. Also, what’s obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me, BobRyan, Gerhard Ebersoehn, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Dr. James White, and many other people, all of whom claim to be following the teachings of the Bible.

First, the Bible teaches that only God can forgive sins.

Nope. This is not true. Jesus gave that very authority in John 20, a passage which has been referred to numerous times here.

Man does not have that power.

Man doesn’t have the “power” to forgive sin. But man has been granted the “stewardly” authority to do so on God’s behalf. Man exercises that power as a steward. The forgiveness certainly comes from God alone. But if you really believed in Sola Scriptura you’d acknowledge the meaning found right there in the text of John’s Gospel where Jesus says: Whosoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven and whosoever’s sins you retain are retained. DHK, I recommend that you begin allowing the Scripture to teach what it wishes to teach, even if it violates the principles you adopted so many years ago as a scared, and uncertain young man who wished to find some security in his faith life. That security didn’t rest in doctrines then and it doesn’t rest in doctrines now. All the security you needed was available to you in the arms of our merciful Lord and not through the adoption of a philosophical and theological tradition which arose out of the 17th Century according to the proliferation of various schisms from the Catholic Church.

--The expression "bind and loose".

Specifically, I am referring to Christ’s words in John 20:23.

Verse 21 is the Great Commission. It is repeated in every gospel and in Acts...

He “symbolically” breathes on them? What does that mean? This comment also begs the question.

--The forgiveness of sins comes only through the shed blood of Christ, and that comes when a person trusts Christ....

The forgiveness of sins comes through the gospel that is preached.... For it is through the gospel....

Thus when one preaches the gospel....

These comments also beg the question.

 

[DHK]

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

In this debate I know my position is the correct one. I set forth my arguments to prove it to be correct. But there is no circular reasoning here.
It would be the same type of reasoning as you trying to convince a J.W. that the trinity is true. You lay out the reasons why. You also assume that his position is wrong. Is that "begging the question"? When one is convinced of the truth he proclaims the truth.

My proclamation of the truth is not begging the question. And yet every statement that I give as evidence to my premise or support of sola scriptura you simply brush off as "begging the question." That is not true.

If one had a more neutral question then begging the question would apply, but the question is not even objective nor neutral. As I explained before, the position of sola scriptura stands alone and apart from all other cults (and I don't mean to be offensive).
RCC: Bibe + Oral Tradition.
J.W.: Bible + writings of Charles Taze Russell
Mormons: Bible + Book of Mormon
SDA: Bible + Great Controversy and other writings by EGW
other cults: Bible + their own writings.
--We have the Bible as our only authority, i.e., sola scriptura.

The Bible is very clear about adding to the Scripture. It gives such warnings in Deuteronomy, in various passages in the prophets, and last of all in the Book of Revelation as it closes the Canon of Scripture:
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Adding to God's Word, even in the form of Oral Tradition, brings a curse upon those that do.
We are to use only the scriptures that God has revealed unto us.

This is not begging the question. This is presenting the evidence that is set before us.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

Blessings to you on this Divine Mercy Sunday.

The problem here is that you see yourself as accessing Scripture apart from your own self. What do I mean by that? You say Catholics have Scripture + tradition, JWs have Scripture + this or that, same for the SDAs and the Calvinists and the Lutherans, etc. But you, according to your beliefs, are apparently accessing Scripture apart from any such tradition.

I can demonstrate quite easily the fact that such is not the case.

James 2:24 states quite succintly and very clearly the following teaching:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

But you don't believe that.

Luke 18:19 records the following from Christ Himself:

“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."

But you don't believe that, either.

I could continue with similar verses which you don't accept, thus proving that you attempt to rightly "interpret" the verses according to the light of reason, context, history, etc.

You, therefore, like everybody else with a mind, reads the Scriptures according to the perceptions, contexts, intentions, etc. associate with the text, its writer, its intended audience, its ecclesial audience, etc. The fact that you deny doing so is what's so pernicious about your position. It allows you to convince yourself that you're right when you're right and that you're also right when you're wrong.

And as far as my charge that you're begging the question, I stand by it.

You present Scriptures repeatedly and say something that amounts to "See. There it is. It says what I'm saying, which is Sola Scriptura is true."

But that's the very thing that I (and most Christians) aren't reading there.

Your position is an unadjustable position. It creates for you an illusion of certainty (ironic for one who denies any form of infallibility for any other agent) as well as an illusion of orthodoxy. But look closer at the words of St. Irenaeus:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same. And… nor will any of the rulers in the churches, whatever his power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no one is above the teacher; nor will he who is weak in speaking detract from the tradition."

That's the apostolic faith. And it is not Biblicism. It is not "Sola Scriptura." It is not the message that was preached to you in a dormitory room years ago, either.

Notice how Scripture is protected and safeguarded from those who'd twist it, for the sake of the Christian Church, by the very thing whose legitimacy you deny.

You have no way to "prove" your position. It is an opinion based upon an illogical inference. It was never held throughout the Church until a time marked by a profound disobedience sweepting its way across Western Europe which initiated an era of a terrible form of Modernist Secularism.

Hold to your opinions. But let's be clear about what they really are: non-binding, private interpretations of Scripture which violate other Scriptural principles as well as the continuous historical witness to the Christian faith provided by figures such as St. Irenaeus.

Again, if you want to avoid begging the question, you'll have to explain, for example, how you can know your New Testament Canon is complete and closed despite the fact that you have no Table of Contents which is inspired and because of whose absence you find yourself, whether you like it or not, relying upon the Sacred Tradition of the Church as far as the Canon being complete and closed is concerned.

One last thing for now:

Adding to God's Word, even in the form of Oral Tradition, brings a curse upon those that do.
We are to use only the scriptures that God has revealed unto us.

You say that God has revealed these Scriptures "unto us." Could you please identify who "us" is in objective, principled way?

Thanks again for your time, DHK,

Herbert

 

[steaver]

You know, I read all these arguments from Catholics as to why the RCC should be the final authority based on history as well as on what the Scriptures may tell us on the subject. I could say, 'sure I see your point, I suppose you could be right', based upon your historical arguments.

The reason I reject the authority of the RCC has nothing to do with the historical record of tradition. I reject the RCC because of it's teachings which absolutely cast blasphemies upon the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Declaring faith in the Son of God is not necessary for salvation. No need to believe that Jesus is the Christ. No need to believe God raised Him from the dead. No need to love the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is why I reject Catholicism. How can I believe the RCC is guided by God when it totally destroys the teaching of God on faith in the name and person of Jesus Christ being a must have or they cannot be saved? Christ tortured and crucified, a horrific bloody deed, for the atonement of sin for all who believe in Him and His work on the cross, and the Catholic says, 'naw, no need to believe all that, just show some love for thy neighbor and you will be just fine'.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Blessings to you on this Divine Mercy Sunday.

The problem here is that you see yourself as accessing Scripture apart from your own self. What do I mean by that? You say Catholics have Scripture + tradition, JWs have Scripture + this or that, same for the SDAs and the Calvinists and the Lutherans, etc. But you, according to your beliefs, are apparently accessing Scripture apart from any such tradition.

I can demonstrate quite easily the fact that such is not the case.

James 2:24 states quite succintly and very clearly the following teaching:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

But you don't believe that.

I believe what the passage teaches, and most on this board will agree with me and not with you.
In fact most of all evangelicalism will agree with me not with you.
What does the verse say:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Let me quote the Bible Knowledge Commentary for a concise explanation:
James emphasized the joint role of faith and… actions… working together. Faith is the force behind the deed. The deed is the finality of the faith. The verb translated was made complete (eteleiōthē) means to “carry to the end.” Faith finds fulfillment in action. So it was with Abraham. James and Paul quoted the same passage — Gen_15:6 — to prove their points (cf. Rom_4:3). Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith, and James said that Abraham was justified by faith evidenced by what he did.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--The Bible does not contradict itself. A man is justified by faith, and faith alone as is so clearly taught here.

Luke 18:19 records the following from Christ Himself:

“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."

But you don't believe that, either.

Only God is good. Why wouldn't I believe that. "Goodness" is one of the inherent attributes of God. Christ was saying "If I am good, then I am God; If I am not good, then I am not God." Be careful who you call good. Not all are good.

I could continue with similar verses which you don't accept, thus proving that you attempt to rightly "interpret" the verses according to the light of reason, context, history, etc.

You, therefore, like everybody else with a mind, reads the Scriptures according to the perceptions, contexts, intentions, etc. associate with the text, its writer, its intended audience, its ecclesial audience, etc. The fact that you deny doing so is what's so pernicious about your position. It allows you to convince yourself that you're right when you're right and that you're also right when you're wrong.

I don't deny doing so. One cannot divorce a passage from its context, intended audience historical context etc. If one does divorce it from such important subject matter he cannot come to the truth. I have used this example to the point of overuse.
Does the Bible teach "There is no god"?
It does declare so in Psalm 14:1. But that is what it says when it is divorced from its context which in its entirety says:
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
--Context gives the verse meaning.

And as far as my charge that you're begging the question, I stand by it.

You present Scriptures repeatedly and say something that amounts to "See. There it is. It says what I'm saying, which is Sola Scriptura is true."

But that's the very thing that I (and most Christians) aren't reading there.

Your position is an unadjustable position. It creates for you an illusion of certainty (ironic for one who denies any form of infallibility for any other agent) as well as an illusion of orthodoxy. But look closer at the words of St. Irenaeus:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same. And… nor will any of the rulers in the churches, whatever his power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no one is above the teacher; nor will he who is weak in speaking detract from the tradition."

Irenaeus was never a Catholic. When he speaks of "the Church" he is speaking of born again believers, or Christianity collectively. The RCC wasn't in existence then. You are simply reading into this quote what you want it to say.
Let's first learn about this man:

Irenaeus (ca. 125-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he studied under bishopPolycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of the Apostle John. Leaving Asia Minor for Rome he joined the school of Justin Martyr before being made bishop of Lyons in Southern Gaul in about 178 AD.

Irenaeus is primarily noted for his refutation of early Gnosticism. To this end he wrote his major work Against Heresies, in which also sought to expound and defend the orthodox Christian faith.
http://www.theopedia.com/irenaeus

--As you can see there was no "Church." The passage speaks only of churches. He is known mostly for his work against Gnosticism and Marcionism.

The same source continues:
Irenaeus is a testimony of the redemptive-historical paradigm unfolding in the teaching of the church from the first centuries of Christian history. The recapitulation of the saved in Christ is a critical link that Irenaeus uses to show the unity of the Bible, the organic nature of revelation and the history of redemption, the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus, and the unity of God. The Biblical-Theological approach that Irenaeus used allowed him to be a bastion of truth against the Gnostic heresies that were so pervasive at his time.

Quite often things get lost in translation. Irenaeus did not write in English. The word "Church" does not refer to the RCC. That is an a priori assumption made by you that leads to false conclusions.

 

[DHK]

That's the apostolic faith. And it is not Biblicism. It is not "Sola Scriptura." It is not the message that was preached to you in a dormitory room years ago, either.

According to the research done by Theopedia Ireneaus believed more in sola scriptura than you are probably interested in hearing about. He defeated the heresy of Gnosticism by his use of the Word, not by using anything else. He was taught by Polycarp who in turn was taught by John. What do you think they were taught? John taught them the Scriptures.

Notice how Scripture is protected and safeguarded from those who'd twist it, for the sake of the Christian Church, by the very thing whose legitimacy you deny.

You have no way to "prove" your position. It is an opinion based upon an illogical inference. It was never held throughout the Church until a time marked by a profound disobedience sweepting its way across Western Europe which initiated an era of a terrible form of Modernist Secularism.

Hold to your opinions. But let's be clear about what they really are: non-binding, private interpretations of Scripture which violate other Scriptural principles as well as the continuous historical witness to the Christian faith provided by figures such as St. Irenaeus.

Irenaeus does not support your position.
The ECF in general contradict each other. Through them many of the heresies we now have were introduced. That which is true and Biblical is in the Word.
Romans 3:4--"Let God be true, but every man a liar." Wherein then, lies the truth?

Again, if you want to avoid begging the question, you'll have to explain, for example, how you can know your New Testament Canon is complete and closed despite the fact that you have no Table of Contents which is inspired and because of whose absence you find yourself, whether you like it or not, relying upon the Sacred Tradition of the Church as far as the Canon being complete and closed is concerned.

A table of contents is irrelevant as it is in any book. It is a convenience but not a necessity.
For example in the OT we have 39 books in our western English translations, the book divided into five basic divisions: Pentateuch, history, poetry, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets.
But the Jews used the exact same OT and had only 22 books, and had only thee divisions.

(KJV) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
--The Pentateuch. The prophets contained all the historical writings plus the prophets, and the psalms contained all the poetical writings. These were the three divisions of the OT which Christ puts his stamp of approval upon. The last of the OT books was written ca.450 and no Jew would ever consider any writing written after the date of 400 B.C. as worthy of being canonical. That in and of itself rules out all of the Apocrypha. Secondly, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT was made ca. 250 B.C. and all of the books of the Apocrypha were of a more recent date than that. That original LXX did not contain any of those Apocryphal books. Thus we are absolutely sure of what the OT cannon was. There is no question about it.
Concerning the NT canon, the early Christians recognized books as inspired as they were handed down to them by the apostles. The apostles themselves knew which were inspired and which were not. Peter indicates this in 2Peter 3 when he refers to Paul's epistles as scripture. He also refers to the words of the apostles as scripture. The early church knew what you today are skeptical about.

One last thing for now:

You say that God has revealed these Scriptures "unto us." Could you please identify who "us" is in objective, principled way?

God has revealed Himself to mankind in two ways:
1. In general revelation, as in nature: the heavens declare the glory of God.
2. In His Word. It is for all mankind.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I can demonstrate quite easily the fact that such is not the case.

James 2:24 states quite succintly and very clearly the following teaching:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

But you don't believe that.

What you are doing, Herbert, is pulling a single verse out of its context and setting it against a load of other texts. Do you think that Protestants don't know that James 2:24 is in the Bible?

James 2:24 cannot contradict John 11:25-26; Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9 and several others. It is the work of the exegete to reconcile these verses together.

The truth of Scripture is not based on 'It is written.' Even the devil can quote Scripture (Matthew 4:6). The truth of Scripture is based on 'It is written again' (Matthew 4:7). Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[herbert]

The reason I reject the authority of the RCC has nothing to do with the historical record of tradition. I reject the RCC because of it's teachings which absolutely cast blasphemies upon the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Declaring faith in the Son of God is not necessary for salvation. No need to believe that Jesus is the Christ. No need to believe God raised Him from the dead. No need to love the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is why I reject Catholicism. How can I believe the RCC is guided by God when it totally destroys the teaching of God on faith in the name and person of Jesus Christ being a must have or they cannot be saved? Christ tortured and crucified, a horrific bloody deed, for the atonement of sin for all who believe in Him and His work on the cross, and the Catholic says, 'naw, no need to believe all that, just show some love for thy neighbor and you will be just fine'.

steaver,

These are really quite egregious mischaracterizations of the teaching of the Catholic Faith.

It is a violation of God's law to "bear false witness." If you have been under the impression that these are accurate characterizations of Catholic teaching, I can assure you, they aren't.

On the other hand, by repeating a lie or a mischaracterization one can be, to an extent, guilty of bearing false witness.

So I would kindly ask that you either substantiate these claims or please take them back. For I've read extensively from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and these teachings are simply not found there. Nor have they ever been taught by any expression of the Magisterium.

Thank you,

Herbert

 

[herbert]

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Martin,

Let's look at the Scripture in question once again:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Now, the principle to which you appeal (that Scripture interprets Scripture) is a valid one, for those who acknowledge Sacred Tradition. For those who have Scripture "alone" as their "ultimate" authority, I just ask that they play by the rules they've established for themselves. For though the "Scripture interprets Scripture" principle is valid, it is the cloudy or more ambiguous passages which are enlightened by the less clear ones, not the other way around. In this case, you cannot get much clearer than what the Holy Spirit revealed here in James 2:24. Combine this passage with 1st Corinthians 13:2, Galatians 5:6 and the fact that Matthew 25:31-46 is speaking directly to the matter of judgment without mentioning the word "faith," I think we can be sure that Scripture is quite clear- especially in light of the fact that we can understand Ephesians 2:8,9 as referrring legalistic works (or works by which one is seeking to self-justify) and not works done in the charity of Christ. John 11:25, 26 doesn't speak directly to the role of works done in the charity and the love of Christ, either. For the Catholic Church does not teach that a man can self-justify according to "meritorious" works done by his own power. This is a heresy expressly condemned by the Church. Further, it is the initial grace, the prevenient grace of God which even allows an otherwise supernaturally incapacitated man to even respond to him. That is why, although "Faith Alone" is not an apostolic doctrine, "Grace Alone" most certainly is. Indeed we are saved by "Grace Alone." And as St. Augustine said, even our good works must be understood as the works wrought by God through us. They are, therefore, according to their divine origin, necessarily meritorious, though they most certainly cannot be accounted to us as meritorious in any "earned" sense.

Finally, my point to DHK wasn't meant to suggest that I don't think "Protestants" know that this particular verse is in the Bible. I brought it up to demonstrate that Scripture, practically speaking, is NOT the ultimate and "only" authority. For in the case of this verse, various competing interpretations are laid out and one is chosen as preferable to the others. Hence, practically speaking, everybody is making an appeal to tradition. And the mere acknowledgment of this fact represents to me an important first step in a process by which various competing "traditions" may be analyzed and evaluated. And like the noble Bereans, we can go about doing this by searching the Scriptures to see if, for example, St. Irenaeus's description of the role of Sacred Tradition which I pasted above is valid and consistent with the Scriptures.

Thank you for chiming in! The more the merrier!

God bless,

Herbert

 

[herbert]

I believe what the passage teaches, and most on this board will agree with me and not with you.
In fact most of all evangelicalism will agree with me not with you.

DHK, You've now introduced another "authority" which I'd describe as a "democratic" appeal. Further, I don't care what kind of numbers you appeal to. For the Scripture says what it says:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

How could I, even with an appeal to other Scripture make that verse say what it doesn't say. Democratic appeal certainly won't lead me to reject one of the most clear teachings of Scripture. Think about it this way, as I said, if that doesn't teach what the words say, then what exactly would Scripture have the Biblical writer record to get you to understand the concept? The inspired author there states as clearly as can be in one statement, right there in divine Scripture, a fact. And you, even while denying the legitimacy of any interpretive Tradition, deny the plain and utterly unambiguous meaning of the text.

So on one hand you attempt to hold others to your "binding inference" of Sola Scriptura while denying it practically in your rejection of such a plain and straightforward text as James 2:24. And again, my point here wasn't to discuss the "Faith Alone" doctrine of Martin Luther, but simply to use that verse to demonstrate my point regarding your unavoidable appeal to "interpretive" traditions.

Again, this is why I said that your position is much like the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream: Apparently strong and sturdy at first glance, but crumbly and ill-founded at its foundation.

Another thing, you said:

I believe what the passage teaches

Well, again, for clarity's sake, let me repeat the phrase:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

So you're saying that you believe that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

Or are you saying not that you believe what the passage actually "says" but, rather, you believe what it "teaches"? In that case, are you suggesting that the passage "teaches" one thing and "says" another? Or do you really believe what it says and teaches (which is the Catholic position, of course)?

Certainly we could continue this exchange, but I do hope that you take the time to review and consider my response to Dr. Geisler's article. I will continue reflecting upon and considering the other things you've shared above.

Also, I would certainly be encouraged to hear more from Martin or anyone else who may be reading this exchange. As I said, I have not spent much time in a forum like this until now and I still don't know what to expect as far as the progress of a conversation goes. I have followed and participated in some comment threads following blog posts, etc. in the past, but never have I done anything like this in a public forum. Thanks again for sticking with me.

Peace to you all,

Herbert

 

[steaver]

steaver,

These are really quite egregious mischaracterizations of the teaching of the Catholic Faith.

It is a violation of God's law to "bear false witness." If you have been under the impression that these are accurate characterizations of Catholic teaching, I can assure you, they aren't.

On the other hand, by repeating a lie or a mischaracterization one can be, to an extent, guilty of bearing false witness.

So I would kindly ask that you either substantiate these claims or please take them back. For I've read extensively from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and these teachings are simply not found there. Nor have they ever been taught by any expression of the Magisterium.

Thank you,

Herbert

Well let me ask you a question I have asked other Catholics. Do you believe, according to the scripture, a Jew or a Muslim, who after hearing the Gospel rejects Jesus is Lord and Christ, will still be saved as long as they love God (whatever that means to them) and they love their neighbors?

And please don't give me one of those "only God knows the heart". I qualified my question with "according to the Scripture".

 

[herbert]

1 of 2
DHK,

First you said this:

RCC: Bibe + Oral Tradition.
J.W.: Bible + writings of Charles Taze Russell
Mormons: Bible + Book of Mormon
SDA: Bible + Great Controversy and other writings by EGW
other cults: Bible + their own writings.
--We have the Bible as our only authority, i.e., sola scriptura.

Notice that last line "We have the Bible as our only authority, i.e., sola scriptura"

Then when I went on to point out that you, too, read the Bible "like everybody else with a mind reads the Scriptures according to the perceptions, contexts, intentions, etc. associate with the text, its writer, its intended audience, its ecclesial audience, etc. you went on to say this:

I don't deny doing so. One cannot divorce a passage from its context, intended audience historical context etc. If one does divorce it from such important subject matter he cannot come to the truth.

So if reading the Bible "alone" amounts to "divorcing" it from something, then you're not following "Sola Scriptura" the way you described it when you contrasted it with the other cults and sects above. The problem, then, is that you've offered a few different definitions of Sola Scriptura. On one hand it will be a distilled down version which is "Bible + nothing" or "Bible alone." Later it may be a broader definition which allows for various subsidiary authorities to play a role in Scriptural interpretation. So when it makes for a good rhetorical point, you'll say something like "Everybody else follows Scripture + something. But we follow Scripture alone." But then, practically, you're led to admitting that you "don't deny" using your mind, historical context, author's intention, etc. to make sense of a text. And you even go so far as to say that not doing so would amount to "divorcing" the text from "important subject matter." You even admit that by doing this you'd not be able to "come to the truth." What you've just presented here is a description of the "material sufficiency" of Scripture. In the process you're describing the role that sacred Tradition plays in accessing the right and proper meaning of Scripture. So here it is that within a conversation in which you're attempting to argue for "Sola Scriptura" you've admitted that there are extraBiblical factors which when "divorced" from the text, prevent a reader from "coming to the truth." If that's not a neat and tidy description of Sacred Tradition, I don't know what is. And, for that matter, if there are extraBiblical factors without which one cannot come to the truth, so much for Sola Scriptura and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. If we were kids playing soccer against each other, I'm afraid you just scored a goal for my team! 8^)

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

This verse is nothing like James 2:24 or Luke 18:19. And where Sacred Tradition tells me to affirm the obvious and apparent reading of James 2:24, it tells me to reject Arius and the most superficially apparent reading of Luke 18:19. In contrast, the clear and apparent reading of Psalm 14:1 is that only a fool would say that there is no God. No one would walk away from that passage thinking that it was actually suggesting that God didn't exist because right there within the text it attributes to a fool such thinking.

Irenaeus was never a Catholic. When he speaks of "the Church" he is speaking of born again believers, or Christianity collectively. The RCC wasn't in existence then. You are simply reading into this quote what you want it to say.

First of all, you're begging the question. If he was a Catholic, you couldn't recognize the fact because you've already ruled out the possibility of him being Catholic by adopting a system of belief which, when it helps you out, allows you to appeal to extraBiblical sources, but when it isn't helpful hides behind the Scriptures it's already interpreted according to its self-affirming nature. Again, that's why I said it's so pernicious. It convinces you you're right when you're right. But it also convinces you you're right when you're wrong.

And, no, I am not reading anything into the quote what I wanted it to say. Before even considering becoming a Catholic I read a book by a former Campus Crusade for Christ staff member, Peter Gillquist, who had become Eastern Orthodox. His comments in the book did stretch my thinking and challenge me to "search the Scriptures" to see if anything he was saying was true. But I can guarantee you that I didn't "want" any of these writings to say what they said. I especially disliked the Marian teachings of the Church (as I wrongly understood them at the time) as well as the glory and grandeur associated with the Papacy. I was far more interested in defending Luther than rooting for any Pope.

Let's first learn about this man:

Of what benefit will that be to your position? And what authority is he to you? He's a mere man whose witness to the early state of Christianity doesn't matter to you by your own admission because the true and apostolic doctrines were all inscripturated, period. And he was a bishop in the Catholic Church, after all. He believed in Baptismal Regeneration, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, the Catholic (Universal) Church, the Primacy of the Church of Rome, the Sacraments, and the Apostolic Witness working in Scripture and Tradition (so much so that it was between the two in his words as though the Church was speaking with "one mouth") according to the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit. All of these things he's recorded in his writings. And for him it's not Scripture alone. It's Scripture + Apostolic Tradition.

--As you can see there was no "Church." The passage speaks only of churches. He is known mostly for his work against Gnosticism and Marcionism.

Are you attempting to use one line from this Catholic Saint's writing to argue that he didn't acknowledge an over-arching authority in the Church? For he's on record affirming the hierarchical nature of the Church in detail. In Against Heresies he even says this: “The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”

And this: “We should obey those presbyters in the Church who have their succession from the apostles, and who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the assured charisma of the truth.”

And this: "Seeing, therefore, that we have such testimony, we do not need to seek elsewhere the truth which it is easy to find in the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man at a bank, deposited lavishly with her all aspects of the truth, so that everyone, whoever will, may draw from her the water of life. For she is the door to life, and all others are thieves and robbers. For this reason we must shun them and love the things of the Church with the utmost diligence and keep hold of the tradition of the truth.”

And this: “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we shall put to confusion all those who… assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should convene with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

As you can see, in these passages he affirms the universal unity of the faith, the assurance of doctrine provided by Apostolic Succession, the role of Tradition, the primacy of the Church at Rome, the univocal Church which enjoys a universal unity in doctrine through the "tradition of truth" preserved by the Apostles as those who made a truth-deposit in a bank for safekeeping from which people are yet able to make withdrawals. Indeed, his conception of the Church is hierarchical. Elsewhere he goes into this in detail. He outlines the universal and local levels of the Church and acknowledges the role the bishops play in shepherding their flocks at the various hierarchical levels. So if you so much as appeal to him for any one little thing, you'll find yourself inundated with more validation of Catholic doctrines than one can count.

The same source continues:
Irenaeus is a testimony of the redemptive-historical paradigm unfolding in the teaching of the church from the first centuries of Christian history. The recapitulation of the saved in Christ is a critical link that Irenaeus uses to show the unity of the Bible, the organic nature of revelation and the history of redemption, the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus, and the unity of God. The Biblical-Theological approach that Irenaeus used allowed him to be a bastion of truth against the Gnostic heresies that were so pervasive at his time.

Absolutely, but as the entire witness of his writings attests, it wasn't by "Scripture alone" that he operated. Although he is very clear about the material sufficiency of the Scriptures (and even describes the Apostles as recording their teachings in the Bible, which is something that the Catholic Church continues to teach today), he affirms the role of Sacred Tradition in the clearest of terms.

 

[herbert]

2 of 2

uite often things get lost in translation. Irenaeus did not write in English. The word "Church" does not refer to the RCC. That is an a priori assumption made by you that leads to false conclusions.

Again, it's not an a priori assumption on my part. That's why I'm here. I was a Baptist until I was 30 years old (8 years ago). I absolutely did not believe the Catholic Faith. And to continue denying that the term "Church" could possibly refer to the Catholic Church is to, once again, beg the question. If you were to say "The word 'Church' does not refer to the RCC because..." Then you would no longer be "begging the question" by presuming (but not conclusively demonstrating) the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church just as you continue to presume the legitimacy of Sola Scriptura without yet having demonstrated its legitimacy, either. So you're begging the question as far as the legitimacy of SS is concerned and you're begging the question as far as the illegitimacy of the RCC is concerned.

According to the research done by Theopedia Ireneaus believed more in sola scriptura than you are probably interested in hearing about. He defeated the heresy of Gnosticism by his use of the Word, not by using anything else. He was taught by Polycarp who in turn was taught by John. What do you think they were taught? John taught them the Scriptures.

DHK, You just did it again. You just said that he "defeated the heresy of Gnosticism by his use of the Word, not by using anything else." You've once again imported the idea that "Scripture alone" is being appealed to. But although he was clearly an effective communicator and he was indeed well-versed as far as the Scriptures were concerned, once again, your point makes it sound as though he just held a Bible up and the words jumped off the pages and shut down his adversaries. But no. He used "reason" and "argumentation." And, since we can actually read the stuff he wrote, we can see that he appealed to Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Faith, Sacred Tradition, and other Catholic things as well. Rather than trying to bring him into the conversation (via Theopedia), you'd probably be better off just writing him off as another corrupt heretic who happened to come around before Constantine really spoiled things and stick to your hypothesis that the Apostles directly transferred everything to the Scriptures and everybody after that was corrupt (including St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom we haven't really even discussed yet).

A table of contents is irrelevant as it is in any book. It is a convenience but not a necessity.

A Table of Contents may be irrelevant to a typical book that you'd find at the Library. But we're talking Scripture here. We're talking the very Word of God. The identification of the Canon of Scripture is what is at issue here and it is anything but irrelevant.

--The Pentateuch. The prophets contained all the historical writings plus the prophets, and the psalms contained all the poetical writings. These were the three divisions of the OT which Christ puts his stamp of approval upon. The last of the OT books was written ca.450 and no Jew would ever consider any writing written after the date of 400 B.C. as worthy of being canonical. That in and of itself rules out all of the Apocrypha. Secondly, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT was made ca. 250 B.C. and all of the books of the Apocrypha were of a more recent date than that. That original LXX did not contain any of those Apocryphal books. Thus we are absolutely sure of what the OT cannon was. There is no question about it.

All of this represents your personal opinion.

Concerning the NT canon, the early Christians recognized books as inspired as they were handed down to them by the apostles. The apostles themselves knew which were inspired and which were not. Peter indicates this in 2Peter 3 when he refers to Paul's epistles as scripture. He also refers to the words of the apostles as scripture. The early church knew what you today are skeptical about.

I am not skeptical about it. I am a Catholic. Catholics aren't skeptical about the content of the New Testament. Also, if you appealed to the witness of the early church to the Canonicity of the New Testament books for anything other than including a passing and incidental remark you just violated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by appealing to the witness of the early church as though it was an authority of any value as far as the identification of Scripture is concerned. Why appeal to the early Christian "church" like you did if the best it can do is represent a lsser or subsidiary authority to the extent that its witness corroborates the already-revealed contents of the New Testament? Further, if there is no "church" but only "churches," it holds that your position is that the contents of the New Testament were so easily recognizable that these many churches which were rapidly spreading throughout the world ultimately came to the same conclusions concerning the NT's 27 texts. Your appeal, then, to the early church's witness just became more complicated. Because if you deny there was any form of "universal" governance in the Church, you must then have only been appealing to the witness to the contents of the Canon. So what's the validity of an appeal to just one church among so many if the extraBiblical witness is superfluous in the first place? So even though you've been denying all along that there is such a thing as an "universal church" and instead there are only churches even you appeal to the "early church" (singular) despite the fact that you deny its existence (And despite the fact that St. Irenaeus, whom you just appealed to as a champion of Sola Scriptura, taught of one, universal Church whose local Churches had to agree with the Church at Rome).

God has revealed Himself to mankind in two ways:
1. In general revelation, as in nature: the heavens declare the glory of God.
2. In His Word. It is for all mankind.

And finally, as a Catholic, I read that second item as "His Word" as in Christ, the Word who became flesh. I wonder, though, if that's what you had in mind. I wonder if, like earlier, you're appealing to the Scriptural Word of God and overlooking the Incarnate Lord.

 

[herbert]

steaver,

Thank you for asking in this way. It seems a lot more genuine. It is so hard to read a person's tone sometimes. I am often concerned about my own. And though we don't agree with each other here, I do wish to be kind and charitable. For though many Baptists don't consider me a brother in Christ (or even a Christian for that matter), I still consider them to be.

You asked:

Well let me ask you a question I have asked other Catholics. Do you believe, according to the scripture, a Jew or a Muslim, who after hearing the Gospel rejects Jesus is Lord and Christ, will still be saved as long as they love God (whatever that means to them) and they love their neighbors?

And please don't give me one of those "only God knows the heart". I qualified my question with "according to the Scripture".

First off, Catholics are bound to the teaching of the Magisterium. So if you go around asking them questions about doctrine, they should direct you to what the Church actually teaches. So that's what I'll do for starters.

As far as the way I look at this matter is concerned, although it seems you want a simple answer, I am not sure I have one to give...

As far as Scripture is concerned, there is one way to Heaven: Jesus Christ. Period. End of story. Everybody knows that. The Catholic Church has been teaching that for about 2,000 years.

But I don't think that's what your question really centers upon, is it? I think your concern focuses upon the Church's expression (in its Catechism) of the hopeful possibility that those who don't "properly" make a "confession of faith" could somehow receive God's saving grace. Well, as far as God's right to deal with humans as He sees fit at Judgment goes, I will leave that entirely up to Him and pray for His mercy and grace for myself, my wife, and our children. Lord, have mercy upon me, a sinner.

I remember the first time I read CS Lewis's story The Last Battle. What a powerful picture of God's love. Amen. Here we have this foreigner to Narnia ending up in the presence of Aslan, expecting to be executed as a follower of the false deity, Tash. But what does Aslan do? He lovingly licks the guy's face. Amen.

As I understand it, without being at all presumptuous (as your mischaracterization indicated) the Church teaches, out of a deep hope and trust in God's mercy, and through a clearer self-understanding which has developed over the centuries, that when a person, through no fault of his or her own, rejects the life of faith (I'm thinking of a friend of mine who may fall into such a category as he was molested by his pastor as a child and has never felt a call to "try church again" as an adult because of those childhood horrors), it is possible, not certain, but conceivably possible, in light of God's manifest love and mercy, that such a person could be saved. If such a person is saved, ultimately, though, the Church recognizes and attributes that individual's salvation to Christ alone.

He is the One way to Heaven. Again, though, Neither I nor the Catholic Church know exactly what God is up to as far as His right to Judge the nations will prove. But I know that I would never put a limit on His right to distribute His graces as He sees fit. And on that same token, I would never diminish His righteous judgment on the sinner, either. Nor would I deny the Catholic Church's teaching that Hell is a real place which is eternal. And it is a place of pure misery.

Just a consideration of these things is sobering.

To close my response, allow me to create a little Q and A list for you which sorta summarizes my viewpoint which I see as both compatible with the Scriptures as well as the Catechism's guarded hopefulness regarding the eternal status of those persons who are not Christian yet might, somehow, by grace, die in His favor:

1) Is God free to save whom He wishes, even if it may surprise us? My answer is "yes, of course!" (Sometimes Romans 2:6 is looked to as an account of the possible basis by which such an event may occur as is Revelation 22:12).

2) Does the Scriptural record (which we're bound to and by which we zealously evangelize) bind, restrict, or constrain God's grace in any way? My answer is "no, absolutely not!"

3) Will there be those who believe they're saved but will find out they aren't? My answer is "yes." (See Matthew 7:21,22)

4) Would I want to, by exploring the question of who's in and who's out, somehow go astray and end up in the latter camp on account of my self-righteous assessment of my status compared to that of others? My answer is "no, thank you!"

5) Is there a neat little formula we can check to see if we're in or out? My answer is "no way!"

6) Aren't we saved according to whether we are truly "in Christ" which is something determined by relationship and not by self-assuring equations? "yes, absolutely!"

7) Will there be those who didn't know they were saved but find out they are? My answer is "possibly." For who am I to limit God's grace and mercy for others when He's poured it down on me so abundantly?

Thanks again,

Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK, You've now introduced another "authority" which I'd describe as a "democratic" appeal. Further, I don't care what kind of numbers you appeal to.

But you do care. You made the same appeal. In a recent previous post you said:
"But that's the very thing that I (and most Christians) aren't reading there."
--This is your appeal to "most Christians" that you believe are not agreeing with me.

For the Scripture says what it says:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

How could I, even with an appeal to other Scripture make that verse say what it doesn't say.

It doesn't teach what you think it teaches. Scripture does not contradict itself and you maintain that it does. How is that?
Consider your "interpretation of the verse and what the Bible says elsewhere:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--Faith plus nothing. Justified by faith alone.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--Salvation is not by works. It is by the one who does not works but simply believes or has faith.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Jesus emphasized that salvation was by faith alone:
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
i.e., Whoever has faith in Him and faith alone, shall receive forgiveness of sins. There are no works involved in salvation.

In the light of all the above verses and many, many more just like them how do you interpret James 2:24 so as to not contradict the totality of Scripture? That is the question you must come to terms with. Whether it is the context of the verse, the passage of the verse, the chapter of the passage, the book that the chapter is in, or the context of the Bible as a whole, one must take into consideration the context. This you haven't done nor are you even considering.

Now having considered the teaching of much of the rest of the Bible consider the verse itself in more than one translation:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

(WNT) You all see that it is because of actions that a man is pronounced righteous, and not simply because of faith.

Weymouth's translation makes it easier to see the point that James was making. It is because of a Christian's actions that he is pronounced righteous (by others), and not simply because of faith. IOW, works are the fruit of our righteousness, the righteousness that is given to us by God that comes by faith and faith alone. But those works declare us righteous in the world. They set us apart so that others see that we are righteous. They don't make us righteous on a spiritual plane; only God can do that.

The Book of Romans is a theological treatise, a doctrinal book written on the subject of salvation.
The Book of James is a practical book written on practical Christian living. They both have different purposes. In our daily Christian walk we must demonstrate works. The righteous person will show works.

In the same chapter here is what James said (the key verse),
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
"I will show you my faith by my works. The works come after salvation, and demonstrate that one is saved. That is the theme of the chapter. One cannot isolate verse 24 from verse 18 and the rest of the chapter, book, and the Bible.

Democratic appeal certainly won't lead me to reject one of the most clear teachings of Scripture. Think about it this way, as I said, if that doesn't teach what the words say, then what exactly would Scripture have the Biblical writer record to get you to understand the concept? The inspired author there states as clearly as can be in one statement, right there in divine Scripture, a fact. And you, even while denying the legitimacy of any interpretive Tradition, deny the plain and utterly unambiguous meaning of the text.

As demonstrated it is not as clear as you thought it was. Your understanding is lacking, and thus the RCC's understanding is lacking--purposefully lacking. It is a false theology, a false gospel, one that Paul, in Gal.1:8 has called accursed. Yet at the same time, that wonderful message of salvation by grace through faith, has been condemned by the Council of Trent, and anathematized. Those curses or anathemas have never been rescinded. That one that calls themselves the "True Church," and yet have such a hatred for "true salvation" is unbelievable. But that is what happens when one goes outside the boundaries of the Bible.

So on one hand you attempt to hold others to your "binding inference" of Sola Scriptura while denying it practically in your rejection of such a plain and straightforward text as James 2:24. And again, my point here wasn't to discuss the "Faith Alone" doctrine of Martin Luther, but simply to use that verse to demonstrate my point regarding your unavoidable appeal to "interpretive" traditions.

Your point wasn't made. In fact I think it backfired.

Again, this is why I said that your position is much like the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream: Apparently strong and sturdy at first glance, but crumbly and ill-founded at its foundation.

Here is my foundation:
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
--I can prove that through the Scriptures

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

--The words Christ spoke and Christ Himself are the rock. I build upon Christ, the rock, and the words and teachings he has left for us.
--You are rejecting his teaching and building upon the words of men and tradition, that is your foundation is sand. It not only will fall, but fell many years ago.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello Herbert,
Thanks for your response..

Martin,

Let's look at the Scripture in question once again:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Now, the principle to which you appeal (that Scripture interprets Scripture) is a valid one, for those who acknowledge Sacred Tradition. For those who have Scripture "alone" as their "ultimate" authority, I just ask that they play by the rules they've established for themselves. For though the "Scripture interprets Scripture" principle is valid, it is the cloudy or more ambiguous passages which are enlightened by the less clear ones, not the other way around.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You appear to have contradicted yourself. But let's carry on.

In this case, you cannot get much clearer than what the Holy Spirit revealed here in James 2:24.

Only if you pull the verse out of context. Verse 23 tells us that by Abraham's 'works' 'the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted [or "credited"] to him for righteousness."' So James agrees that Abraham had no righteousness of his own but his faith in God was credited to him as righteousness. Now in order to reconcile that with verse 24, we have to decide what 'justified' means.
It means, to declare righteous. For example:
Exod. 23:7. '......For I will not justify the wicked.'
Deut. 25:1. 'If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.....'
Luke 10:29. 'But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus.......'
Now we are told in Romans 4:5 that, 'To him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,' Just as Abraham's was. Abraham had no works to offer God when He accounted his faith as righteousness, but God nonetheless justified him. The works that James speaks of in James 2:21 happened years and years after he was justified by God. His works were the proof that he really believed God. His works declared him to be righteous.

Do you get it? We are justified by faith alone, but it does not stay alone. If we have been saved by grace through faith, our works will be the evidence of it.

As Paul says in Acts 26:19-20, 'Therefore......I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared, first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem.......and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.' The repentance and turning to God comes first, then the good works which will prove that their repentance and faith are genuine.

Combine this passage with 1st Corinthians 13:2, Galatians 5:6 and the fact that Matthew 25:31-46 is speaking directly to the matter of judgment without mentioning the word "faith," I think we can be sure that Scripture is quite clear-

The Scriptures are indeed quite clear. The faith by which we are saved will bear fruit in our lives if it is genuine (John 15:5). We will indeed be judged by our works, as they will be the evidence that we are saved by grace through faith. But the first thing is to believe on Christ for salvation (John 6:28-29).

especially in light of the fact that we can understand Ephesians 2:8,9 as referrring legalistic works (or works by which one is seeking to self-justify) and not works done in the charity of Christ. John 11:25, 26 doesn't speak directly to the role of works done in the charity and the love of Christ, either.

That is a fine piece of selective eisogesis. John 11:25-26. 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die? Do you believe this?' Well? Do you? Nothing more is demanded here but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing at all. Whatever you add, be it love or good works of any kind, it is man-made religion. A sinner lays hold of Jesus as a drowning man lays hold of a life-belt. He doesn't ask himself whether it's a good one, or whether he ought to love it or the person who threw it to him. He lays hold of it and is saved. Thankfulness and love will surely come, but they will come later.

 

[steaver]

And though we don't agree with each other here,

That depends on the topic. We agree God is a Trinity.

1) Is God free to save whom He wishes, even if it may surprise us? My answer is "yes, of course!" (Sometimes Romans 2:6 is looked to as an account of the possible basis by which such an event may occur as is Revelation 22:12).

You may not be so far apart from our Calvinistic brothers in Christ as you might think. They hold to the doctrine that one only believes and confesses Jesus is Lord if God causes them to do so. So in a way, your doctrine of God randomly selecting an individual for salvation apart from anything that person may do or not do towards God, including faith, is very similar. But I digress.

2) Does the Scriptural record (which we're bound to and by which we zealously evangelize) bind, restrict, or constrain God's grace in any way? My answer is "no, absolutely not!"

Well, when you speak of God's grace in salvation you are speaking of God's gift of grace given through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So what does the Scripture record have to say about Jesus Christ, for we agree Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Did Jesus Christ or His chosen Apostles tell us who receives God's grace through Jesus Christ and who does not?

5) Is there a neat little formula we can check to see if we're in or out? My answer is "no way!"

Question is, is there any word from Scripture we can check to see if a person is in or out? You say "no way". Really? May I give you a couple that may prove Scripture does say who is in and who is out?

Check these words from Christ out and tell me why they do not say who is in and who is out...

John 3:18 "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".

John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him".

John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins".

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world".

Theses are just a few. How do you argue the Scripture does not distinguish between who will be saved and who will not be saved?