Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

[thessalonian]

 

[trying2understand]

So what is the "offical" "correct" definition of sola scriptura and how do you know this?

Throughout this thread, you have been issisting that there is only one "offical" "correct" definition for sola scriptura. You have repeatedly said that any one who has a different definition is wrong.

Now you say that your undrstanding of the definition may not be exactly correct?

That appears to be an admission that the author of this thread is correct.

Given the multitude of definitons of sola scriptura, it means whatever the sayer wants it to mean.

[ February 24, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[LisaMC]

Bill,

We? Sorry, but I think I will simply say "you," Lisa. You see, having looked before (many years ago) and not finding anything, I think it is incumbent on you or any other Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical person to make the case.

The case can not be made as long as you rely on the disunity of Protestantism as basis for your disinterest in the topic and refuse to accept there is but one definition for the term. Because, until you get past that--your classic resonse will always be--"Oh, that's what you think sola scriptura means? Joe Blow thinks it means <this>? Which of you are right?" Which completely sidesteps and dances circles around the issue. Proving disunity among differing denominations does not by default disprove sola scriptura. You're not arguing based upon evidence against sola scriptura, you are basing your argument upon the many different explanations you've received.

You see, even if you could find a unified definition acceptable to all, it would not prove that the doctrine is correct.

And as I said, proving disunity among Protestant denominations, does not disprove sola scriptura.

Before the so called Protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura was certainly not a celebrated and defined doctrine.

Well, prior to what--1851? The Immaculate Conception was not an infallibly declared dogma of the RCC. What do you propose sparked the Reformation?

There was hints of it, certainly, seen in the heresies that have come and gone; heresies that rejected the teaching authority and traditions of the Church, favoring only the authority of scriptures alone - after all, for the heresies, scripture was all that was left for them.

To which heresies--that have come and gone--are you referring?

But I will never make the claim that I understand it completely.

And I get scoffed at when I make the same admission . . . Hmmmm? So, since you openly admit this, how do you presume that the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium benefits you?

But, if and when I do stumble onto something I do not completely understand, I have the Magisterium of the Church to guide me.

Um . . . I'm sorry, but if it were really that simple and cut-n-dried, I don't understand how 53 years later you could misunderstand something about your faith.

When Christ established His church upon the ROCK of Peter,

Please do not misstake my lack of response to such statements for agreement with them. This is not relevant to our discussion, so I will not address it.

a big rock upon which we can go to for authority and for the explanation of her doctrines.

Her doctrines? I always thought they were God's doctrines. Besides, Scripture exlicitly tells us that if we pray faithfully for understanding, we will receive it. Can you show me where Scripture ever tells us to go to the Church for interpretation or understanding?

And even while there is dissension and disagreement within the Catholic Church, it is like comparing an ant hill with Mount Everest when we view the dissension and disunity we all see in Protestantism.

That's beeCuz, you insist on comparing apples to oranges. It is a false comparison to compare one denomination to many denominations. If you narrowed your comparisons to one-on-one comparisons, you find the unity to be on equal levels.

Why? Speaking for myself, I see the "disadvantage" we have as a stealth advantage - It allows us to point out the weakness in the unity of Protestantism!

Once again a false comparison. Take away the comparison of RCism to many differing doctrines, and stick to comparing doctrine for doctrine, and you lose all the leverage you've counted on during the many years you have practiced Catholic apologetics.

Now, go back and read your statement I responded to (which you did not include in this reply.) I listed the above communities to indicate a disunity in definition of Sola Scriptura.

But you reply thinking I should have included "Catholicism" in that list?

Lisa, Catholicism is not included simply because the Catholic Church does not believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura!

Disunity in individual perceptions and understandings of the term--and RCism is part of that disunity because Catholics also have their perception of what sola scriptura means. Whether or not you believe in or adhere to the doctrine of SS, is irrelevent. you still possess yet another understanding.

I previously said (responding to the proposition that Catholics do not know the scriptures as good as Protestants):

And I hope you will soon learn that some of us Catholic know our scriptures "pretty dern good" as well!

Sorry if it appears that I implied that RCs do not know Scripture. That was not my intent.

Continued . . . .

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

Throughout this thread, you have been issisting that there is only one "offical" "correct" definition for sola scriptura.

Do you think there is not an official definition for sola scriptura? Do you assert that every definition is correct? What is your point? I have given my understanding? If you disagree, then please disagree--show me how my perception of sola scriptura is wrong, based upon my perception, not what 25 other people have said.

You have repeatedly said that any one who has a different definition is wrong.

Do you disagree?

Now you say that your undrstanding of the definition may not be exactly correct?

It may not be, however, that does not negate the fact there is a correct definition out there. So, what are you trying to prove/disprove? That there is no such thing as sola scriptura, or that I'm stupid? What is your goal here?

That appears to be an admission that the author of this thread is correct.

What? That many different people have and present many different understandings of the term? Whoever denied that?

Given the multitude of definitons of sola scriptura, it means whatever the sayer wants it to mean.

Works for you doesn't it? It gives you free reign to base your faith upon bogus beliefs and practices. Searching out the true meaning/purpose of sola scriptura and God forbid, finding it would bring your little fairytale crashing down around you.

The only person suffering by your inability or unwillingness to get a proper grasp on the doctrine, is you. Because you can't prove it's wrong or right without knowing what it actually means.

So, T2U, do you or don't you infallibly understand all of RC doctrine? Does your personal ignorance negate the teachings of the RCC?

 

[trying2understand]

"There is only one offical correct definition of sola scriptura."

What is your basis for believing this?

What makes the definition "offical"?

Who coined the term?

Where can we find that person's definition?

[ February 24, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
To WPutnam;

I don't have much time, so please bear with me.

Being fully retired, I have the advantage of being able to work at my computer all day long.

So please take your time, Bro. Curtis...

I agree that only those who endure to the end will inherit the Kingdom. Only those who overcome the world. But we believe it's been done. Past tense.

I am sure that God, in His infinite wisdom, who is timeless in that past, present and future are all in one in the spiritural realm, He then certainly knows who will endure to the end. And He can do this without effecting our free will of choice, that we are responsible for the choices se make. Therefore, in our own flowing timeline, how we may endure to the end is not certain, defined or set in concrete. Otherwise, we are either pre-condemned at birth to hell without any free will of choice on our part, or we are saved and go to heaven, again, outside of our own free will of choice.

1John 5:4&5

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Without verses like that, it would be easy to translate the verses you posted as "works-based" salvation. But that verse I posted denies it. We cannot overcome the world on our own, Christ did it for us. (John 16:33)

Who said, Faith without works, is dead"?

"Works," as Paul was talking about, spoke of the "Works of the Old Law," which does not save us, but the "works" that should come as as a result of faith is another matter. It is not enough that we simply believe in Jesus Christ or even accept Him as our personal savior. It is also a part of this greater definition of "faith" which includes "hope" and "charity."

Here is a paper done by James Akins that discusses the difference between "faith" as many Protestants vies it and "faith" as we Catholics see it. Under close analysis, there is a basis for agreement once the definitions are understood:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

Now, when we have those verses I gave previously, looking at your quote of 1 John 5:4-5, is it just possible that we are seeing a bit of hyperbola here? John is like the football coach tells his prayers, "We have the game plan and we can't loose!"

That does not mean that it is impossible for them to loose the game, but rather, they had better stick with the game plan!

If a person is "born of God," does that mean that through serious sin, sin that leads to apostasy, that the individual is still saved? Is is possible that one who is "born of God" loose that distinction through serious sin?

Look a little further in 1 John 5:16-17 and we note John (talking to saved born again Christians by the way) explaining the situation of a "brother sinning." Please note the definition John makes between "sin that is deadly" and "sin that is not deadly."

Why speak of this if the brother, though sinning, is assurred of his salvation? What if this brother commits a sin that is "deadly"?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

What is your basis for believing this?

Why should I doubt it? What you think 10,000 different people all spontaneaously develop an doctrine, and pin the name sola scriptura on the doctrine, having never heard the term sola scriptura before? Every word has it's origination period. Why would SS be any different?

What makes the definition "offical"?

What does that have to do with our discussion?

Who coined the term?

I would say the leaders of the Reformation brought it to the forefront of Christianity. But, I'm not a scholar nor an expert on the subject--yet.

Where can we find that person's definition?

Do your own homework. I've provided you with links full of information--I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.

Also, I thought I recognized the name James White when Bill mentioned him, and now I know I did. Here's an exerpt from and article of his. I wish you would go to the link and read the entire article:

Sola Scriptura in Dialogue

James White

(White's comments in normal print)

. . . There was a moment of awkward silence, then Paul spoke up. “I, too, once believed as you believe. I remember well the fight I put up when I first began studying the Church’s teachings.”

“You mean the Roman Church’s teachings?” I inserted.

“Well, yes, the Catholic Church. I had been very anti-Catholic when I was an evangelical, so it took a tremendously long and difficult time of study before I came to see the truth of what the Church teaches. I…”

I interrupted, “I’m sorry, but you say you were an anti-Catholic? I’m not sure how you define that, but does that mean you wrote books against the claims of Rome, engaged in debates, that kind of thing?"

“No, I didn’t write any books or do any debates, but I was very opposed to Catholicism in general.”

“Did you write any tracts, then, maybe some articles?”

“No, I didn’t.”

“So, what you mean is you, like most convinced Protestants, rejected Rome’s claims to absolute authority over you in doctrinal matters. Doesn’t that mean that all convinced Protestants are, in your definition, anti-Catholics?”

“Perhaps I should have used a different term” Paul said somewhat uncomfortably. “My point is that I know where you are coming from, and I would like to share some of the highlights of my journey, a journey others” he said, glancing toward the former member, “have likewise taken.”

“It was my understanding,” Roger asserted, “that we came here this evening to answer some basic questions regarding the authority claims of Rome over against the authority claims of Scripture itself, specifically, about the doctrine of sola scriptura.”

“Yes, and that is a big part of my story” Paul said, leaning forward. “See, it was my inability to define and defend, biblically, the doctrine of sola scriptura that truly caused me to make the decision that I needed to follow Christ’s Church.”

“I would very much like to pursue that assertion” I picked up, “but we can do so without personal testimonies. Some in this room once embraced Roman Catholicism, as well, but we are not seeking to explore those personal stories this evening. I would like to begin by asking you to define what you think sola scriptura is.”

“Yes, well, sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible alone is to be our guide. That we are not to hold to any traditions.”

“I’m sorry you think that is what the doctrine states” I replied matter-of-factly.

Paul was definitely not used to being on the defensive. “Well,” he smiled, “given that there are 28,000 different denominations out there, I’m sure there are about as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are denominations.”

“Oh, I thought the new number Roman Catholic apologists were using was 33,000. I’ve heard so many grossly inflated numbers it is hard to keep track. If there are 250 meaningful denominations with any substantial historical or numerical presence I’d be surprised, not counting non-Christian religions and the like that are often lumped into such a survey number, like the Mormons, but even then, those who actually hold to sola scriptura and who seek to consistently practice it would be an even smaller number. But the fact remains that no meaningful historical Protestant denomination has ever put forward the definition of sola scriptura that you just did.”

“I have talked to many who accepted that very definition” Paul insisted.

“No doubt you have, which may explain your success in confusing folks on the topic, actually. But sola scriptura does not teach what you are saying it teaches. Let me get the definition clear before we discuss its truthfulness. Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.”

T2U, quit spinning your wheels. Either you can disprove sola scriptura or you can't. If you wish to challenge my take on the issue, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, drop it.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
T2U, quit spinning your wheels. Either you can disprove sola scriptura or you can't. If you wish to challenge my take on the issue, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, drop it.

Lisa, I am quite on topic.

This thread is not about proving or disproving sola scriptura.

This thread is about finding the definition of sola scriptura.

For all your bluff and bluster, it seems that you do not have the offical correct and true definition.

If you go back through the thread, you will find that it was you, not me, who said that there is but one "offical" "correct" defintion of sola scriptura.

Either you know exactly what that definition is and the authority behind that definition ("offical") or you do not.

You have conceeded that you do not know either with certainty.

The originator of this thread makes a good point.

We do not have a sigular definition for sola scriptura.

Hence the title "Will the real sola scripura please stand up."

 

[LisaMC]

Here's an excellent article. Please read!!!

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/debates/guthrie/rebut1guthrie.htm

Exerpt:
Shandon L. Guthrie's First Rebuttal

Resolution: "The Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is True."

Affirmative - Protestant

In this rebuttal I shall address the arguments raised by Derksen and see if my case for sola Scriptura is a better one.

NO GOOD REASONS TO DENY SOLA SCRIPTURA

First, Derksen suggests that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is historically impossible because the disciples of Jesus were concurrent with the ongoing inscripturation of the canon of Scripture. Remember, I explicitly stipulated that sola Scriptura is a post-Apostolic doctrine. Thus such a criticism that a sola Scriptura did not exist during or prior to the Apostolic era is surely vacuous. Secondly, the fact that new revelation is presently being given during the Apostolic era and that subsequent Apostles and believers made references to other Apostles is only an indication of the present Apostolic authority, not a minimization of past Scriptural authority. I have already noted where the Apostles cited previously established doctrine where no present well-established authority existed or was accessible.

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

Lisa, I am quite on topic.

If you say so. What is the topic? That you and Thess are befuddled by the many different explanations you have received from others? Or is the topic that not only do most RCs not have a complete grip on what SS is, but also many non-RCs don't have a firm grip? What exactly is your mission?

This thread is not about proving or disproving sola scriptura.

Then what's it about? Is it not called "Will the Real Sola Scriptura Please Stand Up?" So, if someone gives you the definition is it not going to be challenged?

This thread is about finding the definition of sola scriptura.

And, excluding the possibility that you are willing to take someone's word for what that definition is, how do you or Thess propose finding that definition?

For all your bluff and bluster, it seems that you do not have the offical correct and true definition.

I believe that I do know what it means. However, I, also know that you are not going to say, "Oh, that's what it means? Okay-cool." What do you want me to say? The only people that I'm aware dare to claim infallibility is the RCC. So far, in my search especially during the last week, I have not found any logical opposition to my understanding. So, I ask you again is your mission to locate the meaning of SS, or to make others look stupid? Your going in circles here.

If you go back through the thread, you will find that it was you, not me, who said that there is but one "offical" "correct" defintion of sola scriptura.

And I believe that? Do you not?

Either you know exactly what that definition is and the authority behind that definition ("offical") or you do not.

Am I required to know that? Have I stated that I did know that? Who are you to tell me what I do and don't know? What is your point? Whether or not I say that I have the right definition does nothing to further your journey to locate the meaning of the term.

You have conceeded that you do not know either with certainty.

And . . . what is your point with repeating this? What does my concession do for your argument? Your pointing out my uncertainty . . . why?

The originator of this thread makes a good point.

That is . . .

We do not have a sigular definition for sola scriptura.

Doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Hence the title "Will the real sola scripura please stand up."

The purpose here was not to find the definition it was to make a point of the many different definitions you've been given by everyday laypeople . . . I'm trying to figure out why?

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

If you go back through the thread, you will find that it was you, not me, who said that there is but one "offical" "correct" defintion of sola scriptura.

So, are you asserting that there are many different official definitions? Because, if you're right, and there are, then we are all right.

Either you know exactly what that definition is and the authority behind that definition ("offical") or you do not.

Well, since you've established that there can be more than one correct meaning, I guess I am right.

 

[trying2understand]

Lisa, you are just pulling my leg, right?

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

Um . . . yeah, sure . . . whatehvah you say . . .

 

[Bro. Curtis]

To; WPutnam

Still in disagreement with you.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

I still say salvation is done, a one-shot deal. I couldn't get out of it even if I did want to. I am one of God's children. When my child disobeys, she is still my daughter. We are still his children, even when we chose to disobey. Once saved=saved once.

 

[LisaMC]

Bill, now that distractions seem to be out of the way, I will continue.

You said:

We Catholics stand on the "ROCK" of the Church, speaking in one voice as guided by the Holy Church (Don't you mean "guided by the Holy Spirit?), but the non-Catholic community speaks in a cacophony of many voices, too often in disunity of doctrine and faith.

You might just have a legitimate argument if Protestantism was known as only one denomination. However, it's not. Your comparison is false, because your argument is based upon a "straw man." If you want to lump all non-RC, evangelicals into one category to use as a comparison group, then to produce a fair and balanced argument you must group all other groups that believe their church possesses and infallible authority above and beyond Scripture. Those groups would be Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism. I would wager that all non-RC, evangelical denominations have far more in common with each other than RCism, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses have in common.

Show it to me, Lisa...

Bill--if I restate for you what I believe the definition of SS to be, you will not address the fallacies in the doctrine as I give it to you. You will most likely do as others here have done, grab on to the fact that there are many evangelicals who disagree as to what SS means.

In the meanwhile, I will have the advantage in stealth, to take advantage of a lack of a common definition!

Which does nothing in regards to disproving sola scriptura.

The "disadvantage" I originally spoke of is simply as convenience we would have in not having to discern the precise definition of Sola Scriptura from an individual when we debate Sola Scriptura - to have a precise and uniform definition is to simply save time.

Your convenience is merely a scapegoat, a distraction from the facts, a way to avoid the legitimacy of sola scriptura.

But to not have that precise definition is the chink in the armor of Protestantism that we will go for every time. It is our "stealth advantage."

We are not bound to defend Protestantism as a whole. We are bound to defend our faith, therefore, our armour is just as solid as yours. Like I said, your tactic of attacking this supposed disunity, is a waste of time for you. It only muddles the issue, never addresses it or resolves it.

I said:

But, it's the RCs ho place themselves in this position. If you stopped the argument of RCism vs all Protestantism, many of your major arguments used to disspell non-Catholic teachings would become null and void.

You replied:

Very interesting, Linda. You see, that is how I usually operate.

Huge misstake on your part for banking the basis of your argument on a false dilemma. By doing so, you have obtained a false sense of victory and supremacy.

And the issue of Sola Scriptura is one of those issues that effects Catholicism, thus I respond as I do.

But, see, by addressing a "straw man" argument, you do nothing to further your cause or prove your point. You are arguing against a non-existant doctrine.

First of all, there might not be enough meat for this to be another thread, as I find only one place where Jesus does this. But since Paul likewise does this, you will find the following link an interesting read:

Yet again, you misunderstand my point. Jesus does not use oral tradition to correct followers. Jesus rebuked Satan by saying, "It is written . . . " not "Tradition teaches . . . " You example does not apply. Referring to something in the OT by a name not used in the OT does not a tradition make. I'm not seeing how this proves "Most striking."

Who are Jannes and Jambres? Well, the Old Testament doesn't mention them, but if you consult a handy Bible reference work, you find they are the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. So... if these gentlement are not in the Old Testament, how do Paul (and Timothy) know their names? The same way thousands of their contemporaries knew. For, in fact, Paul is again drawing on (and assuming Timothy will draw on) a widely known extrabiblical Tradition, and treating it as authoritative revelation.

Authoritative how? What type of authority is displayed here? Things may have factually happened, yet not be included in Scripture, but how exactly is authority applied? Truthful and factual, yes. But how does it equate to authoritative? A particular teaching or practice passed on orally constitutes a tradition--that I understand. However, how is what a particular tradition may or may not have been called become an authoritative tradition?

Lisa, I think the whole gospel and the Church was "formed" at the same time - Pentecost.

Wait . . . now you need to make up your mind. You have previously admitted that the Gospel formed before the Church. You however distinguish between the oral Gospel and the written Gospel.

Even while Christ had completed his gospel message to the apostles, infusing them into the hearts and minds of the apostles, it took the holy Spirit at Pentecost to "complete the job" so to speak. The establishment of the "Church" was a part of Jesus' ministry!
It certainly did not exist before Christ, but one could also say it did not, technically, exist immediately after Christ ascended into heaven, but again, at Pentecost.

PART of Jesus' ministry--the Gospel was delivered by Him, during His ministry--before the Church was founded. Scripture contains four gospels, Jesus' ministry in writing, all delivered before the Church was founded.

Remember, the establishment of Christ's church, as given in Matthew 16:18, is in future tense.

I think I pointed this out first.

It certainly did not exist immediately after Christ's resurrection , since He had a bit more instruction to do with His own apostles (John 20:22-23 comes to mind here, when He first appeared to the apostles after His resurrection.)

Thank you! You have just admitted that there was a delay in the formation of the Church after Christ's resurrection. Further evidence that the Gospel had been delivered before the Church formed.

We also see the commissioning of Peter in John 21:15-19 in the "feed my lambs...sheep" sequence, which occurred just before His ascension.

Not sure how this pertains to our discussion.

Therefore, when did the Church "lighted fires under all boilers" (U.S. Navy parlance for preparing to get a steam powered ship underway) in the start of her divine mission? Pentecost, of course....

Not sure of your point here either.

**Time for a break for station identification** Stay tuned for the continuation of my program.

[ February 24, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
To; WPutnam

Still in disagreement with you.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

I still say salvation is done, a one-shot deal. I couldn't get out of it even if I did want to. I am one of God's children. When my child disobeys, she is still my daughter. We are still his children, even when we chose to disobey. Once saved=saved once.

I am not sure I see where John 6:29 has anything to do with OSAS. It still takes the free will of choice to "believe on Him that is sent," certainly God assists in giving the graces that one would believe. Still, that same individual can apostate like "...The dog (that) returns to its own vomit" and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire" per 1 Peter 2:22.

Even while I may be in grave mortal sin, I know that God wants me back (being that I am still his "prodigal son") but like the Prodigal Son in the famous parable, what if he had not returned to his father in sorrow and remorse?

While in theory, there cannot be anything other then pure happiness in heaven, I still wonder sometimes how God must grieve and is so sad that even His own "children" will continue to abandon Him to the point of a death that never ceases for all eternity in hell.

Bro. Curtis, I never expected to change your mind on what you believe. And I am sure you realize that you will not change my mind either!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[WPutnam]

Lisa,

I will wait until you complete your replies.

I'm not sure how I will be answering it but I think I will probably read it and then conclude with a link or two on the subject. I do believe we have just about about rendered all we can get out of this subject and simply begin repeating what we have already said.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Hi WPutnam, I didn't mean to confuse you, or derail the thread. I have seen posts by RCCers saying works help in keeping one saved, that lack of works + losing salvation. So the verse I posted was an answer to the works thingy.

No sir, you have not changed my mind. I still am secure in my salvation. Even when I sin.

Psalms 118:18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Hi WPutnam, I didn't mean to confuse you, or derail the thread. I have seen posts by RCCers saying works help in keeping one saved, that lack of works + losing salvation. So the verse I posted was an answer to the works thingy.

Well, they are almost right. I would say it this way: "Faith, without works, is dead." In otherwords, instead of us Catholics saying, "I am saved," we say "We are being saved." To have a faith that saves is to work at that faith.

And that brings me back to the original link I gave you that I think explains the different attitude we Catholics have about the word "faith":

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

No sir, you have not changed my mind. I still am secure in my salvation. Even when I sin.

...A doctrine that I have see as simply a presumption of the salvation of the cross. I also perceive a doctrine that is dangerous - that one who presumes on one's salvation may very well take this salvation for granted to the point of returning the the state of sinning he/she was envolved in as before, or perhaps even a state that is worse then before.

Psalms 118:18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.

Absolutely! God will not abandon us, but we are still able to abandon God.

David was so chastened for his adultary, and even as God forgave him (in answser to David's asking for forgiveness) David still had to be punished for it with the loss of his son.

Contemplate the situation if instead, David had hardened his heart further and plunged deeper into sin without repentance at death........

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[LisaMC]

Bill,

Going to try to answer some more of your posts.

You said:

The gospel came first, which included the future tense establishment of the Church, which I have just explained above, until the holy Spirit descended at Pentecost. We certainly had the now closed covenant of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament yet!

The New Covenant wasn't yet revealed, but not necessarily not formed.

Altogether now.....The gospel came before the Church (oral only in the hearts and minds of the apostles.)

Delivered orally by Christ. However, Christ spoke to others besides the apostles.

The Church came before the New Testament, (the gospels now began to be recorded as ink touched papyrus in it's writing.)

No, you may be able to effectively argue that the Church came before the New Testament being placed in writing, but not before the New Testament.

The Church husbanded, gathered together, all of the contempory writings of the New Testament era, separating the "wheat from the chaff" as to what was inspired and what was not, and then compiled and canonized them as holy scripture that is divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture!

Compiling the texts as guided by the Holy Spirit. However, though the Church likes to claim responsibility of canonization, Scripture did not need to be canonized by the Church. God already informed disciples that all Scripture was divinely inspired.

Easy, Lisa. The providence of God that it was so, and the authority of the only "agency" around who could declare such a thing!

Now you are the one dodging questions. I know Scripture was written down due to the Providence of God. But why did God chose to have Scripture written, if the Church has papal infallibility and divine protection from teaching error.

Just like you and I and even the Church "existed" in the mind of God from all eternity! But insofar as the time flow of earth and the universe is concerned, it certainly did not exist.

You and I may have existed in the mind of God, but He did not foreshadow you and me in the OT.

Are you saying that the Church is the one tiny exception that God know of all things that "existed" within His own infinite knowledge and omniscience against the fact that God knew the "existence" of every grain of sand that forms this earth? Or even every atom and molecule that exists in the entire universe?

Don't understand this question.

Which the Church taught from, orally, from the hearts and minds of the apostles and some of their successors before ink ever touched papyrus in it's writing!

But, why do you believe that God left things relative to our salvation out of the written text?

It is in this era of time, immediately after Pentecost and even into the close of the apostolic era and somewhat beyond, that we see the appearance of the New Testament scriptures.

Yes--because the apostles, who originally believed (Paul especially) that Christ was going to return to gather His elect before their demise, eventually realized that He may not return before they passed away. Thus, they began to ensure their teachings were preserved in written form.

It was slow, but sure, and yet even up to the 4th century, the oral tradition was mosty the authority that was in operation.

Due to lack of avalability of written texts, illiteracy, etc . . . . BTW, it wasn't the authority it was the mode of delivery.

Continued . . . .