Below is my response to the latest response to me
by Scott Eric Alt, the author the article “The Protestant’s
Dilemma by Devin Rose: A Review,”
(http://scottericalt.com/the-protestants-dilemma/0/)
which in turn was to my previous posts there, which began when his
review was the subject of a thread on Free Republic, which i
responded to there.
A link to that was not allowed (would not post) on
Scott's blog, so i wrote refutations to him there. Mine last
response was quite extensive, and his comment policy (which i had not
read) is supposed to be restricted to 500 words or less, yet this was
in response to an approx. 7,000 letter response to me. However, after
posting his response he allowed no more responses to the thread, then
deleted our entire exchange. Perhaps one can respond now (i
will tell him of this post), but missing is our exchange.
And in which exchange, among other things,
► The RC Scott had expressly affirmed that
“being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture means
one is the infallible authority on that, with dissent from that
authority being rebellion against God.” And thus it settles
what the meaning of Scripture is, not human reasoning, and thus this
is the basis for Roman Catholic assurance of Truth.
And thus he effectively invalidated the church,
as that began in dissent from those who were the historical
instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of divine
promises of God's presence and preservation., and who sat in the
seat of Moses. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is.
41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt.23:2). But which NT
church established its claims, as its Lord did, upon Scriptural
substantiation in word and in power (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn.
5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm.
15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not on the premise of a perpetual
assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself
as having such.
► Despite his basis for basis for assurance
of Truth being Rome, he asserted it was Mt. 16:16, and has tried to
argue Scripture as if he were an evangelical. But which cannot be
that basis, else the argument against private interpretation and the
need for the infallible magisterium must be abandoned, although he
himself employs it, and affirms the magisterium cannot be wrong.
He then resorted to immature goading when I would
not play his game of him trying to sound like an evangelical in
using Scripture for support, as while this certainly has been deal
with and i go on to do so, I first wanted to bring him to deal with
the real issue of his assurance, that being the premise of the
assured infallibility/veracity of his church. For since he admits
“Catholics are bound by the Magisterium,” thus regardless
of what Scripture says, it cannot contradict Rome.
► Coming to his last response dealt with
here, in being consistent with Rome being his assurance, he affirmed
(“exactly”) that “if one rejects a Baptist
preaching Acts 10:36 – 43 then that soul is
not rejecting Christ.” Which, if correctly understood as
rejecting the message Peter preached in Acts if coming from the mouth
of a Baptist, effectively means that this message is not be
considered the Word of God unless it comes from one having holy
orders from Rome (which adulterate that message) — even if he
had the Holy Spirit which Rome affirms most Protestants have. And
thus it would follow that one who does accept the message has
not accepted Christ and is not saved.
► He also expressed that only the external
(Roman) infallible authority could determine which books belong in
Scripture, thus providing for assurance of Truth, but which means no
one could know that any books were of God before there was a church
of Rome.
► And in his zeal to support ancient RC
amorphous tradition, he also has labeled what Scripture actually
teaches — the Law being given through the instrumentality of
angels — as being tradition that “is not to be found in
the Old Testament”!
So seeing as he would not allow any response at
all to his own post, and then deleted the entire public exchange, I
have decided to post a response here.
The words from my past response are marked by a bullet (•) while those from Scott that follow are in bracketed red italics, followed by my present responses. This blog is not always faithful to keep that same formatting as i had when i wrote it on my word processor, but any difference is not substantial. However, it is a lot to digest, but should be read in its entirety before any response is made.
The words from my past response are marked by a bullet (•) while those from Scott that follow are in bracketed red italics, followed by my present responses. This blog is not always faithful to keep that same formatting as i had when i wrote it on my word processor, but any difference is not substantial. However, it is a lot to digest, but should be read in its entirety before any response is made.
[I am allowing this
heavily edited comment to be posted, with my own responses
in red. Because the original comment was way too long,
I cut a lot of chaff..]
It became long as i sought to better respond to
all you said, but it was not “chaff” that you cut out,
but much wheat that seems hard for you to stomach. More on this
when we get to your response chronologically.
• Saying that
this is a text of Scripture (which you did not say was an
infallible interpretation) would render
you to be an evangelical. [Really?
To say that Matt. 16:18 is in the Bible is a Protestant
position? Catholics deny that Matt. 16:18 is a text of
scripture? That’s news to me.]
Once again, as before, you are misrepresenting
what i said and then supposedly correcting what i did not argue! Here
your editing out “chaff” means what precedes and proceeds
it, which was,
you were supposed to be
answering “What is the basis for your assurance that Rome is
the One True Church? Or what is the means by which assurance of Truth
is obtained?”
To which you said: “The assurance is Matt.
16:18...”
Thus i said, “Saying
it is a text of Scripture as that basis [for assurance] would render
you to be an evangelical,”
I asked what your basis is for assurance of Rome
being the One True Church®, which cannot be Scripture, and until
we deal with what is, then arguing about Scripture texts is basically
irrelevant as your understanding of Scripture is based on a
foundational premise.
• [I
think what you are trying to say here is that I don’t
interpret Scripture as much as I blindly follow what
Rome says. That’s avoiding the issue.]
Avoiding the issue? THAT was the
issue, as the answer to my question cannot be that Scripture is the
RC basis for assurance, as you hold the magisterium settles whose
interpretation of it is right, and acting as if Scripture is your
actual basis for interpretation and then refusing to deal with that
problem, is “avoiding the issue.”
•
[At any rate, all you’re doing, with this long
quibbling about whose interpretation is involved
here, is engaging in avoidance. I’m sorry, but my
readers are smart enough to see through that.]
Quibbling about whose interpretation
is involved is a tangent, when only the magisterium can determine
which books even belong in the Bible, and what they mean, is your
basis for interpretation?
Many who have debated RCs are smart enough to
realize that it does not matter what manner of Scriptural
substantiation is lacking for RC teaching or is against it, as actual
Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of RC
teaching. For once again, as Keating said in dealing with the lack of
any actual proof, “The mere fact that the Church teaches the
doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is
a guarantee that it is true.” All that is
required is that RC teaching does not contradict Scripture, but Rome
is the autocratic judge of that as the only one who authoritatively
decides what a contradiction is!
Nor will appealing to your RC support committee
change this indictment, while by God's grace many evangelical
readers are wise enough to see through Rome's circularity. (And
trying to argue out this death spiral by appealing to Scripture as a
“merely historical document” still results in
question-begging assertions that presume Rome is infallible, and
logic that works against her being so).
•
[I know that Protestants insert the word “alone”
into Romans 3:28; ; perhaps they also remove the word “Church”
from Matt. 16:18.]
Which once again is a example of argumentation
that come back to bite you, since as James Swan (whose research
on Luther's quotes is the The Place to go to in researching such)
provides,
The Roman Catholic writer
Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim, and also presented
quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise.
Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated
Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein
durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and
of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” It is entirely
possible Luther’s understanding of “faith alone”
differs from those before him, but that is not the issue.
Moreover, by “Protestants” you
mean “Luther,” whom we hardly follow as a pope, for he
was far more Catholic than we would allow. However, both he and
other Reformers clearly taught
the faith that is salvific is a faith that effects works of faith.
•
[What you are really doing, in fact, is rejecting ad
hoc the idea that epistemological certainty
can come from the Church. “Objective examination
of the evidence” is your standard, but the problem
is that it makes your ultimate standard yourself. You
decide what is “objective”; you decide what counts
as “evidence.”]
Wrong: i am not rejecting the idea
that epistemological nor no certainty
at all can come from the Church, and even atheists can (possibly)
correctly teach history, but what is rejected as being unScriptural
is that certainty comes from the Church on the premise of
assured veracity/infallibility. Under which, Scripture,
tradition and history can only mean what Rome says. As no less an
authority as Manning affirmed,
It
was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not
primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity.
But
the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a
treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this
hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I
may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests
upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is
present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable.
Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.
— Most
Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of
Westminster,
The
Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:
Or
Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally
written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
As for condemning objective examination
of the evidence as making the individual the ultimate standard
yourself, your judgment is superficial. For ultimately
both evangelicals and Catholics first decide what that ultimate
supreme standard is (it being the basis by which a convert is
said to come to Rome), and both engage in interpretation of it,
but that does not
make mean they are the ultimate, much less infallible,
standard for truth.
Souls themselves decided to believe on Christ,
even in dissent from the magisterium, but in so doing they give
assent to Christ being the supreme authority. Writings came to be
held by a consensus as being from of God based upon warrant, and it
alone is wholly inspired of God, thus infallible, and is the assured
word of Christ, thus the supreme standard. Those who hold it as such
can have debate about some its meaning, but Scripture remains the
standard for Truth, and with assurance of doctrine being based on
Scriptural substantiation from it. In contrast, RC converts judge
Rome as the supreme infallible standard, with Truth being whatever
she infallibly declares, even if the arguments for it are not, and
the veracity of such is not based on the level of Scriptural
substantiation.
Thus
contrary to Scripture, Roman Catholics assurance of the Truth is not
Scripture, and in fact Rome hindered
Biblical literacy for a long time, and today her liberal theology
Bible commentary
militates against its authority. Instead assurance is based upon the
premise of the assured veracity of Rome, which she infallibly
declares she possesses.
Yet
to reiterate a foundational truth that was expressed before, while
Rome claims to uniquely, infallibly determine both which writings
and men are of God, and their meaning, based upon her claim to being
the historical instrument and steward of God, yet both writings and
men of God were established as being so before there was a church in
Rome. And the NT church itself did not begin under the Roman model
for determining Truth, but upon Scriptural substantiation.
Thus
the basis for the establishment of the NT church began contrary to
the basis of assurance for a RC, for whom Rome takes the place of
Scripture.
•
[But when challenged on the evidence from the
Bible, all you are capable of saying is, “Well,
that’s just what Rome says.” That’s not logic;
that’s ad hoc rejection of any interpretation
or evidence that does not match what you have already decided to
believe.]
That is simply both false on both accounts, as it
is you who from the outset asserted a false basis for your assurance,
that being Scripture (Mt. 16:18) and was called on it, but instead
of dealing with the problem you attacked me for not playing into your
sidetracking argument, as if Scriptural substantiation was your
basis for assurance.
And which you attempt to continue to do here, with
your spitball about me “only being capable of”
nonsense, when the problem of “that’s just what Rome
says” is the issue it seems you are avoiding.
I could have easily shown you (if i had freedom
more space, as here), as i have others, that that truth that Christ
of Peter's confession — and thus Christ Himself by
implication, is what the “this rock” refers to, with a
distinction being made between “thou art” — the
person of Peter who just answered Christ — and upon “this
rock” — that being His answer.
This is the only interpretation that is actually
confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in
contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”)
or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large
rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most
abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor.
10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42;
Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt.
32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's
current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well,
but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St
Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para.
424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
Yet even if this refers to Peter, it simply does
not teach or require a perpetuated
Petrine infallible papacy, nor does any other text, despite RC
extrapolative attempts to force Scripture to support their tradition.
More on this further on.
Moreover and even more important, the fact is that
under the Roman model you affirmed, in which historical stewardship
of Scripture means infallible indisputable authority, an itinerant
preacher who was rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses would
have to be rejected by the faithful. His disciples could argue
Scripture with you, but you would have to side with your leaders, and
their interpretations such as which they use today to reject the Lord
Christ. (And the manner of liberal scholarship seen in Rome actually
provides a slippery slope to that end.)
• But while a
consensus on core truths has been realized thereby,
this does not preclude variant interpretations,
and Rome herself is much open to interpretations,
and has limited unity, even on paper.
[We’re going down a rabbit trail here.]
No rabbit trail, as it is in response to your
statement, if all you can do is retreat to
"just an interpretation," eventually that leads to the
conclusion that truth can not be known assertion.
I am actually expressing the RC argumentation in
order to show you that your claim that Mt. 16:18 is the basis for
your assurance is bogus, as they are the ones who argue we cannot
even known what books belong in Scripture or what it truly means
except by Rome's infallible magisterium. As if souls in the time of
Christ could no have any assurance of Truth until the church of
Rome declared it.
The codependency mother Rome fosters is so
inculcated that it is hard for RCs to conceive of any other means of
assurance.
• But since once one
becomes a RC then they are only to attempt to support what Rome
teaches in apologetics [I
don’t know what’s shocking about this;
Evangelicals claim to be bound by the Bible because
it’s infallible. Catholics claim to be bound by the
Magisterium because it is also infallible. So?
The burden of proof is on you to show why the Magisterium
is not infallible, not just to say “Oh, Catholics are
bound by the Magisterium!” — a fact that we
kind of, you know, admit],
Because RCs kind of, you know, rarely admit
they are in such bondage, as they typically, if not engaging in
mere argument by assertions, want to appear to argue as if
Scriptural substantiation was the basis for their assurance. But
when their often egregious extrapolative attempts to provide proof
is exposed for what it is, then they say how reproof is invalid
because it is a result of fallible human reasoning. So after a
while you want to deal with their fall back argument and actual
default position first.
As for the burden of proof being on me to
show why the Magisterium is not infallible, since
i showed that the church did not begin on the premise of an
assuredly infallible magisterium, nor was one necessary for both
writings and men of God to be recognized and established as such,
and that being the historical steward of Scripture did not mean such
was infallible — unless you think the Scribes and Pharisees
were — then the the burden of proof is on you to show
the Magisterium must be infallible and Rome is. Not that I
have not dealt with such, by God's grace.
• which
they have great liberty in doing from Scripture, and are
discouraged from objectively examining
evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC
doctrine [That is simply
not true],
That is simply a denial of the substantiated
church-sanctioned statements and writers i provided, to which more
can be added.
• then the issue is
your basis for assurance of Truth. [Well,
I gave my basis earlier in the thread: Scripture. I cited
Matt. 16:18, John 16:13, and 1 Timothy 3:15. I am still
waiting for you to explain why my reading of Scripture
is false. Instead of doing that, all you do is fuss that I’m
just blindly following the Magisterium.]
Listen. You gave me a false basis for assurance of
Truth, which you refuse to face. That was my point in the statement
you truncated to mean something else. You affirm scripture is
interpretive, and you just affirmed that you are bound by the
magisterium as it is infallible, thus its interpretation, or
declaration of truth, is your basis for assurance. Thus whatever
texts you invoke can only support Rome under the premise of her
assured infallibility, which is why i asked the questions on that to
begin with, and invalidated the stewardship premise you affirmed.
Moreover, I have refuted Catholic arguments from
Scripture for years, by God's grace, and likewise can certainly
show, as many times before, that Matt. 16:18, John 16:13, and 1
Timothy 3:15 does not establish the assuredly infallible
magisterium of Rome.
But you admit RCs are bound by the Magisterium
because it is believed to be infallible, thus getting you
to face that the basis for what drives your interpretation is
invalid, the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome based on
historical stewardship, should come first.
The more you avoid that by attempting to argue
Scripture, which actually would have been to your detriment anyway,
then the more you evidence avoidance or blindness.
•
[An atheist would say that you are just blindly following
the Bible. Where does that get us? Nowhere but rhetoric.
Then i would need to deal with my foundational
basis for holding Scripture as the supreme standard for Truth. But
if I argue for this as being based on interpretive evidences when in
reality a fundamental premise drives my interpretation, then he
atheist who knows this will attack the fundamental premise first.
And which can be employed against him as well.
An atheist can argue against the existence of God
based on things which are interpretive, but if they are driven by a
foundation premise such as that matter and energy require no creator,
and or religions are all the same and show belief in God is
detrimental or superfluous, then i should dealt with these.
Likewise your position that no can know which
book belong in the Bible without a perpetual assuredly infallible
magisterium, that being Rome, and that being the historical steward
of Scripture mean such is that infallible magisterium.
And which drives the RC interpretation of
Scripture, as at least that is the most common response i find from
RCs when debating Scripture, like as, “The Catholic Church
gave you the Bible, therefore it knows what it means better than
anyone.” It gets quite redundant. Thus rather than use time
and space to disprove “proof texts” i showed the fallacy
of the premise behind Rome being infallible in the first place.
• Why argue
Scripture when it cannot be allowed to contradict
Rome? [This
is another attempt to avoid the burden of exegesis.]
This is another attempt to avoid what drives your
interpretation.
•
[The real answer to that question is, first, that
Christ upheld the authority of those who sat in Moses’s
seat (Matt. 23:2), and that it was not that the apostles
rebelled against the Jewish leaders so much as superceded
them through Christ. It was by Christ’s authority that the
Jewish magisterium gave way to the Catholic
magisterium, not by the authority of mere men.]
Finally an attempt to face this elephant. And
your response is what must be expected — and fails to support
Rome. For if you want to make Rome the successor to the Jewish
magisterium, then it follows that since the historical
instruments and stewards of Scripture were not assured infallible,
nor was one necessary for both writings and men of God to be
established as being so, and for assurance that Jesus was the Christ,
then neither is Rome.
Moreover, while you
may argue that the Lord provided a better magisterium, yet since the
Lord Christ established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation,
not on the premise that the stewards of Scripture were the infallible
interpreters of it, then the
church He established cannot operate under a premise that she is
assured infallible and thus “the mere fact that the Church
teaches something as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.”
• Again, why would I argue this since it can only mean to you what supports Rome? [That is not an answer to the question; it is a refusal to answer the question.]
Rather and again, this is a refusal to play your
game of playing evangelical, as if Scripture warrant was really the
basis for assurance of Truth, in order to to avoid the issue of the
presumed assured veracity Rome being that. It is a fine craft, as it
subtly works to persuade souls to submit to Rome as the supreme
authority by specious use of Scripture as if that was supreme, but
resulting in doctrinally making Scripture simply a servant to
support Rome, often like window dressing, or in order to appeal to
evangelicals. The devil even quotes Scripture as authority.
•
[Congratulations, you discovered
exegesis, although this particular attempt
to nuance 1 Timothy 3:15 is not new. The problem with
using it to refute the Catholic claim is that Catholicism does
not say that the Church is the source of truth, which you suggest.
The source of truth is the Holy Spirit, who reveals and entrusts it
to the Church.]
RCs do often argue as if it were, but while the
church as the body of Christ is an instrumental channel of truth,
1Tim. 3:15 does not make it superior in authority to it, nor that
this is the church of Rome with its critical and obvious contrasts,
to the NT church.
The Bible was not originally penned by the
magisterium proper or a committee (unless you believe the liberal
scholarship of Rome), but Scripture was written by individual
writers and accepted as such before it was affirmed by the
magisterium as being of God, and in fact some of it was written by
those in dissent from the magisterium. Thus Israel and the body of
Christ gave us Scripture, and recognized it such, with the
magisterium affirming the general judgment of it, but which neither
made such writings Scripture nor the magisterium the author of it,
nor its canonical judgment infallible.
Like as the redeemed came to recognize John and
the Christ as being of God due to their qualities and attestation,
and before a magisterium did so, thus a consensus on the Scriptures
also progressively came to be established among those who evidenced
the fruits of feeding on it, and which has continued to establish
these 66 books.
• The Scriptures
are the supreme authority on Truth
[Actually, the Holy Spirit is,
and when Christ said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into
truth, he did not say “Go and write Scripture” but
“Go and teach” (Matt. 28:19)]
Yes — as if
i must be technical every time i say supreme authority on Truth.
I have been technical before
in defining this supreme authority as the “transcendent
material source which he uniquely stated ...[was] wholly inspired of
God.” And as that is the only transcendent material source
that is affirmed to be wholly God-breathed, then that is the assured
word of God, thus knowing what the Holy Spirit says, and supreme
standard for truth claims and whether a church is of God — or
not. Which church is not one that presumes to infallibly declare she
is and will be perpetually infallible.
As for not saying, “Go and write Scripture”
but “Go and teach,” this is another specious RC argument
as in “God sent a church, not a Bible,” which is a false
dichotomy, like saying God sent Paul to preach, not to be baptize,
(1Cor. 1:17) in order to minimize baptism as required obedience (in
overreaction to those who make the act regenerative). And which
argument is used in order to render Scripture subject to the Church
(Rome) as the supreme infallible authority, and thus whatever she
channels into doctrine from oral tradition as binding.
Which is akin to Judaism in God speaking by Moses
means not simply what he wrote but the oral traditions they pass
on, and therewith reject Christ as there Messiah. Jews today, like as
in the NT, who do come to Christ do so in dissent from them, holding
Scripture as supreme. Likewise those who come to Christ from
Catholicism, or the relative few who do within it.
The Catholic argument here is as if “Go and
teach” did not have its basis in what was written, and as if
what they revealed as being the word of God/the Lord would not be
written as in prior revelation (search the phrase).
And as if it was superfluous that the Lord
established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation as did the
apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39;
Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19;
2Cor. 12:12, etc.) And “expounded unto
them [disciples] in all the scriptures the things concerning
himself”, “which were written in the law of Moses, and
in
the prophets, and in
the psalms,” thus “opened He their understanding, that
they might understand the scriptures.”
(Lk. 24:27, 44,45)
“And
Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days
reasoned with them out of the scriptures. (Acts 17:2)
These were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of
mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were
so. (Acts 17:11) For he
mightily convinced the Jews, and
that publickly,
shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
And...he expounded and testified the
kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law
of Moses, and out of
the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)
In the light of what “Go and speak”
meant, which only further evidenced Scripture as being the
transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing
truth claims, what kind of argument is “Christ did not say 'Go
and write Scripture' but 'Go and teach?' The latter was based on
the former and led to more of it!
You can argue that oral preaching was as
authoritative as Scripture, and then translate that into supporting
Rome's tradition, but the authority of preaching depended upon
Scripture as being the assured word of God, and by which it was
validated as by the noble Berean's, (Acts 17:11) with supernatural
attestation such as Scripture reveals being given to Divine
revelation also helping. (Jn. 5:36,39)
In addition, Rome cannot claim to speak under the
Divine inspiration which breathed Scripture, and the oral tradition
Paul enjoined obedience to was known Scriptural truths that they had
heard and could be written, not ancient tales such as the assumption,
which even lacks
testimony from the earliest sources. Rome cannot prove that one of
its oral traditions was from the apostles. Meanwhile evangelical
preachers also enjoin obedience to “preaching the word,”
which the whole church engaged in. (Acts 8:4)
See at end for a brief overview
of how Scripture came to be the transcendent standard for obedience
and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly
evidenced.
and by which it is
manifest that Rome has led multitudes into error.
[It is so
“manifest” that [• • you
give no examples.]
You cut out most of what i posted — then deleted all of it — and now criticize me for not providing even more? Or are you just desperate to get some polemical points? If i knew i could have provided a ink (which would not go through the first time i tried), then i would have used some for such references, as i do on this blog.
...Paul was not a RC (for
reasons that can be given), nor did he ordain RC priests, while
neither this or any other text supports a perpetually
infallible magisterium.
[All you do is run
• • • rhetorical
circles around the text to deny this; you never illustrate
why you are correct.]
Never illustrate? Are you reading what i
wrote or only what you want to see? You invoked that the Holy Spirit
will lead into "all the truth"in speaking to the apostles,
who ordained others (1 Tim. 4:14, 1 Tim. 5:22) in trying to
establish Rome as uniquely being that Church, all of which rests
upon the premise of formal historical descent of office establishing
authenticity. Therefore i responded by stating that Scripture showed
Rome leading souls into error, not all Truth, and that neither did
“formal historical descent, as messy as Rome's is, constitute
the basis for authenticity under the New Covenant.” (Mt. 3:9;
Rm. 2:28,29)
And this has already been shown, for again, if
formal historical descent of office was the basis or even necessary
for authenticity, then the church never would have been valid, as
it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.
The problem with so much of Catholic apologetics
is that as its agents are so willing to support Rome who declares
what is truth by fiat, that they superficially see texts as
certainly supporting her when they do not, calling things that are
not as though they were.
•
[The Bible has already told us who the Holy Spirit will
lead into "all the truth"; Christ is speaking to the
apostles, in whose charge He left the building of the Church, and who
in turn commissioned others as successors (cf. 1 Tim. 4:14, 1 Tim.
5:22).]
Which is the kind of extrapolation and presumption
i just referred to. You have a promise that God will lead the
apostles into all Truth, which by leaping logic somehow translates
into perpetuated infallibility, and the church of Rome today!
Instead, it is because this refers to the Spirit
guiding the church into all truth through the further revelation
Christ would give by the Spirit, and would be thus contained in
Scripture, that the heresies and aberrations of Rome are exposed.
For the church she imagines the Holy Spirit leads into all truth is
a church contrary to Scripture, being one,
▀ that looked to a exalted its supreme
infallible demigod head, unlike as seen
in Scripture or
early history, calling things that are not of Scripture essentially
as if they (being equal to it),
▀ whose apostolic office was continuously
perpetuated unlike as in Scripture, and often by political
machinations that made manifestly impenitent immoral men supreme
infallible leaders;
▀ which praying to departed spirits, unlike
as seen in Scripture, but as pagans did;
▀ which believed the mother of Christ, as
concerning the flesh, was sinless, a perpetual virgin, and bodily
raised and already crowned, which things are not
taught in Scripture, and contrary to it (in which notable exceptions
to the norm, especially by primary persons, are stated, and that all
culpable souls have sinned, and marriage is defined as including
sexual cleaving, saints are not crowned until the Lord's return);
▀which was offering oblations and bowing
down beseeching a “queen of Heaven” for favors, like
pagans;
• and operated with a class of clergy
foreign
to the NT church, titled “priests,” and often with
ostentatious dress and other titles, and with required celibacy
(normative) unlike as in Scripture, (1Cor. 9:5; 1Tim. 3:1-5; Titus
1:5,6) and which presumes all have this gift. (1Cor. 7:7)
▀ and which priests were called such as
they engaged in a heretical
sacrificial form of “Christianized” endocannibalism as
their prime and unique function, to give spiritual and eternal life
by physically, consuming corporeal human flesh and blood, versus by
faith in the gospel (Acts 10:43,44; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13);
▀ and imagining another ritual itself makes
one good enough for Heaven, even a morally incognizant soul that
cannot repent and believe as required in Scripture (Acts 2:38;
8:36-38);
▀ and imagining she dispensed grace from
her Treasury of Merit through rituals (which are usually foster
perfunctory professions);
▀ yet then usually sending them (half
baked) off to an imaginary
place of fiery torments for an indeterminate periods commencing
at death, in order to become good enough for Heaven;
▀ and inducing offerings (“indulgences”)
to be made to escape sooner, etc.
All of which and more is contrary to what the Holy
Spirit provided in the writings of Scripture so as to guide those of
apostolic faith into all essential truth, and thus exposing the
errors of Catholicism.
And as said, we have zero apostolic successors in
Scripture after the one, chosen by casting lots, (Prov. 16:33) to
maintain the original foundational 12, (Eph. 2:20; Rv. 21:14) which
we have not today, and none for the martyred James, (Acts 12:1,2)
nor any instructions for chosen one except Acts 1 which Rome deviates
from, and no evident preparation for another, which would be a
notable event and surely recorded as important to the church. Just
more proof Rome did not alter the Bible. Moreover, a qualification
for an apostle seems to have required a literal personal discipleship
by the Lord Himself, (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17) while
the apostolic proof of an apostles was powerfully in word, virtue and
in power. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)
• But
again, invoking texts as the basis for your assurance
reveals you simply fail to get it. [That
must be the first time I have ever heard a Protestant describe
appeals to Scripture as “invoking texts.” An
atheist who denied the authority of Scripture
altogether could do no better.]
And you speak of “rhetorical smoke?”
This misrepresentation avoids the reality that “invoking
texts” continues to refer to your doing just under the false
presumes that Scripture is your basis for assurance when it are
not. An atheist could tell you that.
• To
be consistent with the absolute need for an assuredly
infallible magisterium, conclusions of
fallible human reasoning must be rejected, thus
no matter what i say you must oppose it IF contrary to
Rome. [All this means is that you
reject out of hand anyone who would disagree with you from
a Catholic point of view.]
Wrong. All this means is that while I can agree
with RCs, and have actually changed some aspects of my beliefs as a
result, and defend many things we both concur on (insomuch as we do),
yet a faithful RC is not to allow himself to be persuaded by
Scripture or Scriptural arguments that would be contrary to
supporting Rome. Only what she ordains can be said to come from God.
• [Actually,
the Church Fathers pick up where the Scripture leaves off in
affirming apostolic succession. Which I
discussed in this article.]
Actually, so-called “church fathers”
(the apostles and prophets of Scripture were: Eph. 2:20) are neither
Scripture
nor uniform in supporting Rome, thus as said, Rome “judges
them more than she is judged by them” (Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Tradition and Living Magisterium”) While pious, yet CFs
were in error on some things, and also as said, even Catholic
scholars provide testimony
against the RC idea of a perpetuated
Petrine papacy from the 1st
century.
• If you want to deal with Luke 10:16 even though it cannot be allowed to impugn the claims of Rome, what i said is what is supported, that it pertains to all who preach the evangelical gospel. [Yes. If they are in apostolic succession and receive Holy Orders. But one cannot just get up one morning and declare himself a preacher of the gospel. They must receive their orders from someone authorized by God to ordain. That would be a bishop.]
Rather, while many persons and churches claim
they are of God, the cultic ones proclaiming themselves the one true
witness, Scripture tells the laity to test the spirits and prove
all things. (Dt. 13:1-11; 18:15ff; 1Thes. 5:21; 1Jn. 4:1) And which
manner of testing John and Christ passed, thus the church began in
dissent from those who should accepted them.
Certainly the leadership bears primary responsibly
for discerning sheep from wolves, (Acts 20:28-31) based on
Scripture, but are not above it, so that a claim to be a church
must also be tested, but which means of establishment Rome presumes
she is. And ultimately protects herself from refutation by relegating
them all such as invalid under the premise that they rely on fallible
human reason, while she is infallible.
For as said before, the reality is that Rome has
presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually
infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly
defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her
declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all
else she accordingly declares.
This filters down to the lay apologetics, in which
attempts are made to appeal to evangelicals on the basis of
Scriptural warrant for RC claims, but when these are unconvincing,
the “we gave you the Bible, we know what it means”
becomes their recourse.
You yourself affirm the magisterium is always
right, thus no challenge to that can be allowed as true, based upon
the fallacious premise of historical descent and stewardship of
Scripture meaning infallibility.
You give much attention to Lk. 10:16: 'He
that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me;
and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. “(Luke
10:16) But while your position is certainly
consistent with your damning premise which you affirmed (and of which
more still will said further below) yet it is inconsistent
(nothing new) with what the Lord showed, as He did not at all
invalidate or censure one casting out devils in the Lord's name, yet
who was not of the apostles company — just the type of
man you disallow as representing the Lord. And in response to the
sectarian disciples who (in this case acted like RCs), sought to
forbid him, the Lord said, “Do not forbid him...For whoever is
not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:39,40: NAB) And will be
rewarded. (v. 41)
Seeing that such a one is for the Lord though not
part of the apostolic assembly, thus if one rejected him, as you
must, then he is rejecting Christ. And which is akin to “he
that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me,” and thus you
must find some way to have ordained the man to operate in the Lord's
name though he was not part of the apostle's church.
In addition, as said, formal historical descent is
not the sure nor necessary basis for authenticity, but manifest
Scriptural faith is. Thus John the Baptist along with the many true
prophets in the OT were not such by way of Levitical priestly
ordination or otherwise by magisterial approval, but often reproved
the powers that be. Sometimes at the cost of their lives, which
certainly speaks of not having their sanction.
The apostle Paul was truly preaching the word of
God before even meeting apostles, (Acts 9:20; Gal;;. 1:17,18) and
for years before having any formal sanction of his message. And he
still would been a valid apostle even without without the latter
formal sanction, as he was established as an apostle long before it.
And as to believe is to confess Christ, (2Cor.
4:13) Rome's refusal to recognize properly baptized Prots, who
manifestly have the Spirit, as representing Christ even when
preaching Peter's message, does not invalidate them, but instead it
invalidates Rome's rejection of them, as well as the Jewish
magisterium's rejection of the church.
Furthermore, while you restrict preaching the
gospel to those with Catholic holy orders, the whole early church
was scattered abroad without the apostles, yet “went
every where preaching the word,” (Acts 8:4) and
there is no record of ordination making them all bishops or one
of the 6 deacons.
Nor did one have to be a prophet to be of God to
be valid even though rejected by the magisterium, for as Christ
promised, “Wherefore, behold, I
send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some
of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some
of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them
from city to city.” (Matthew 23:34)
And in the NT church all are called and enabled to preach the common gospel, and to “prophesy.” (1Cor. 14:31)
• For in context this does not apply to simply the apostles, which hardly anything does, nor did it originally to those whom they themselves ordained, but to the other seventy that the Lord appointed also. (Lk. 10:1) [Yes. Commissioned specifically by Jesus, not by themselves. I think the commission of Christ himself has some authority. It is not pertinent to the self-validating claims of Protestants.]
It is Rome whose self-proclaimed elitist status
and assured infallibility is the issue, while your assertion is
entirely consistent with the fallscious premise you affirmed, that
“being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture means
one is the infallible authority on that, with dissent from that
authority being rebellion against God.” And thus you side with
the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, who being those
stewards and acting like Roman Catholics, say unto Christ, “By
what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this
authority to do these things?” (Mark 11:28)
What could an itinerant Preacher do? He and His
cousin had both publicly reproved the magisterium for their
unScriptural presumption, yet they sat in in the seat of Moses.
Under the Roman model, these men could not be right if rejected by
the magisterium, and they certainly were.
However, while general obedience is enjoined to
both religious and civil powers, (Mt. 23:2; Heb. 13:17; Rm. 13:1-7;
1Pt. 2:14) yet assured veracity is nowhere perpetually promised to
any seat on this earth, and sometimes the people are correct and the
magisterium is wrong and dissent was and is required.
And in this case the people rightly recognized
John the Baptist as a prophet of God, and Christ as Messiah. And
being also the only wise God, the Lord thus asked them, “The
baptism of John, was it
from heaven, or of men? answer me.” (Mark 11:30)
This question caused a short circuit in the powers
that be, as they knew of no answer that would not incriminate them.
Thus the might magisterium defaulted to, “We cannot tell.”
Nor can RCs consistently allow manifestly born
again souls to be right and represent God if she rejects them. Yet
as said, the rejected Lord sent forth many who were also rejected by
the magisterium, and thus the church began, but not as one which
operated under the same presumption as the Pharisees, nor one without
ordination and structure etc, but one in in which the One True
Church is the body of Christ, as all have the Spirit, and thus are
called to witness, manifesting the visible church:
And it shall come
to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit
upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and
your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams: (Acts 2:17)
• Thus
you must argue that this [“He that heareth you heareth me...he
that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me”] applies only to
Rome, and the non-existent separate class of priests”
she ordains, so that if one rejects a
Baptist preaching Acts 10:36 – 43 then
that soul is not rejecting Christ.
[Exactly.] (eph.
mine)
This is in-credible and absolutely astounding,
if correctly understood as rejecting the message Peter preached in
Acts if coming from the mouth of a Baptist (which many do preach), as
what that would mean by implication is that even Scripture —
even the very gospel message of Acts 10:36 –43 —
is not to be considered the Word of God unless it comes from one
under Catholic Holy Orders.
And thus it would follow that one who does accept
this message has not accepted Christ if coming from a non-Catholic,
despite the testimony of even many converts to Rome. Yet even your
own theology teaches that a trinitarian baptized Protestant has the
Holy Spirit, and that “God gives His gifts and graces whereby
He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He
has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...”
(Lumen Gentium 16) And that to believe is to speak, yet you cannot
allow that the Holy Spirit speaks through any Protestant, thus
representing the Lord!. This means the Holy Spirit is not operative
when preaching the message Peter preached.
While i think few RCs would concur with you, this
is the consistent logic of your argument, and the presumption of
Rome.
Meanwhile, like those whom who were reproved by
prophets, wise men and scribes, in reality Rome is the church that
is misusing the Lord's name most universally, as it critically and
substantially is contrary to it, as described above.
• Catholics
do not even know for sure how many infallible teachings
there are, or what level each teaching belongs to, and thus what
manner of assent is required, or if dissent is allowed,
besides their meaning often requiring varying degrees
of interpretation. [Simply
not true. This is not even close to true. This is simply a myth
you have picked up along the way.]
Really? then please be the first RC to provide an
infallible list of all RC teachings and what magisterial level each
teaching belongs to. It will sell well. Or are you only denying
that the meaning of RC teaching often requires varying
degrees of interpretation? Go visit Catholic Answers
forum, and the many pages of debate over what something means. And as
said, tell me how the teaching that RCs adore the same God as Muslims
is clear and does not need interpretive explanation.
• [I don’t
know; that sounds to me very much like what I described it [below].]
You actually mean “if an assuredly
infallible magisterium is necessary to
[have] established both writings and men of God, and for
assurance of Truth, then souls could not have been sure the very
Scriptures the Lord invoked were indeed Scripture,” means
“an infallible magisterium would leave us
uncertain which books of Scripture were truly inspired is
simply incoherent”?
Then let me try to make it clearer. Though it may
seem strange to an RC, the very Scriptures the Lord invoked
were indeed established as Scripture, even though an assuredly
infallible magisterium did not exist. But if the
latter is required for both men and writing of God to be established
as being so, and for assurance of Truth, then this establishment of
Scripture would have been impossible before the church of Rome came
to be, and would presume such was necessary.
• [Well, in fact,
the canon of the Old Testament prior to Christ was
determined by tradition. No one assumed that the
Hebrew texts were self-authenticating.]
This is not an answer that solves your problem,
for it does not realize that this “tradition”
needed to be established upon something, like as writings had to be
recognized and established upon a basis, and as is the case with men
of God. A magisterium is to confirm what is of God, but such is of
God and has authority before they do confirm them and whether or not
they do, and in fact due to the qualities and attestation by which
such is essentially established, it will reprove a magisterium that
fails to affirm, as was the case with prophets, wise men and scribes
God sent and were rejected. Any NT magisterium itself must
continually evidence qualities and attestation that testify to its
authenticity, relative to its claims. And even the apostles did not
claim things Rome presumed she perpetually possesses.
• Which
would be a contradiction [since all the books are
infallible] [You
are accusing R.C. Sproul of engaging in self-contradiction
on this point? That’s very Catholic of you to say!]
What is very Catholic is to use just part of my
statement, but regardless, it seems RCs simply have a hard time
conceiving of us not always concurring with men like Sproul as if he
was a pope, while when a pope says things contrary to Roman doctrine
they simply say that he was not speaking infallibly. So i suppose
we could say neither was “pope Sproul” speaking from the
chair or denying an article of Protestant faith. And in fact the
canon not being infallible for RCs would
have been right if said before Luther died. Thus the debate
within Trent itself over books.
And if you agree with my reasoning behind my
contradicting Sproul, then if Rome holds that the 66 books of the
Protestant canon are infallible (though it appears some RCs deny
Scripture itself is infallible), then so would its canon, unless
infallible canon means a canon that cannot be added to. See below.
• [Sproul described the Bible as “a fallible collection of infallible books.” It was a sly and transparent way of trying to get around the Catholic observation...Only an exterior authority can do that.]
That Rome is that exterior authority you
mean, which is a presumption contrary to how assurance of truth was
realized in Scripture.
Sproul (of whom i have read very little) was
arguing Scripture as being God-breathed is infallible, and was
objecting to making the declaration of the canon to be infallible
like Scripture is under the premise that the church possesses the
charism of infallibility.
However, if we hold that the the Pentateuch (for
instance) was infallible Scripture before there was a church (and
thus had authority), then even a canon of just those 5 books would be
“infallible,” though assuredly true based on the same
means by which men of God were established as being so, not because
an infallible office possessed a gift of being infallible whenever
it spoke according to its infallibly-defined criteria/formula.
But if by an infallible canon we mean not simply
that it only contains wholly infallible books, but that no more can
be added, then that presumes Trent even closed the canon, of which
there is or has been different Catholic opinions. Also, if a
different canon based on the number of books is a major issue, then
it should also be one between Rome and the EOs, but it is not.
• [...sola
scriptura cannot tell us what books belong in the Bible in
the first place. Only an exterior authority can do that.]
Wrong, wrong wrong, “only” being
the error, or else no one knew whether any writings were Scripture
before Rome! As expressed before, since Scripture attests to
both writings and men being recognized as being of God or not, thus
sola scriptura, in which not all things are formally taught,
does materially provide for the consequences of this discernment —
a canon of infallible books, and thus an “infallible”
canon.
• But
the meaning of infallible is an worthy subject.
In Scripture while God cannot lie, (Titus 1:2) and all men
are liars, (Rm. 3:4) thus only what is wholly inspired of Him is
assuredly the word of God [yes, but
that begs the question].
And the RC answer basically is that an infallible magisterium is required in order to know and establish both which men and writings are authoritative, and that the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture are that magisterium. And that assurance of truth cannot be through fallible human reasoning, since this result in disagreements, so therefore it requires an infallible magisterium, which Rome provides. And thus RCs have assurance that she is this magisterium because Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible.
But which is obviously circular, and arguing from
Scripture as a “merely historical book” in order to prove
that Rome is infallible, and thus only what writings she decides are
Scripture are infallible (“without the existence of the Church,
we could never know whether the Bible is inspired” —
Keating), requires interpreting such writings as teaching that they
could not be and were not recognized as infallible Scripture unless
and until Rome defined them thusly, which is contrary to what they do
honestly testify to. Therefore they must essentially make
interpretive assertions (which includes Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16; 22:32;
1Tim. 1:15; Jn. 20:23; etc. = perpetual assuredly infallible
magisterium of Rome) based on the premise that only one
interpretation is possibly correct, because Rome is infallible.
One can go further with this, but he reality is
that while the teaching office is critical and of primary
importance in doctrinal controversies, and to which obedience is
enjoined, and on each level of it, yet it is not assured infallible
and superior over Scripture, nor absolutely necessary for discernment
of Truth claims. For Truth and falsehood was recognized before
Rome, and thus the church began with common people holding John and
Jesus as being of God, while the magisterium did not.
The result of this consensus of the remnant
faithful recognizing Christ was recognizing another magisterium He
established, but not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility of
office any more than those who sat in the seat of Moses.
The RC arguments for her perpetual assuredly
infallible magisterium have no actual proof but are all extrapolated
out of false premises, nor did it eliminate dissent, but ended up
becoming more like the world in dealing with it, and or in morals
when not using it.
The end result of this reproved but recalcitrant
Romish presumption and immorality necessitated a “divided
kingdom” on earth, which remains to this day (if too much),
while the spiritual kingdom has exponentially grown almost entirely
through those who were set at liberty from her, due to a core unity
in essential gospel truths, thus contending against those who deny
them, including Catholicism and her traditions of men and perversion
of the gospel.
• The
Lord went through Scripture, not ancient oral tales, showing
the Scriptural basis for Him being the Messiah, and opened
the eyes of the disciples (not just 11) from the
tripartite canon. (Lk. 24:27,44,45). [Actually,
as I pointed out here: “Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, and
Hebrews 2:2 all allude to the Jewish tradition that
the Torah was ‘declared by angels’ (to use the
expression in Hebrews). This tradition is not to be
found in the Old Testament.”
That is absurd, as this “tradition” of
angels instrumentally delivering/declaring the Law is simply what
Scripture teaches, and is certainly not like nebulous ancient RC
traditions like the Assumption, PTDS
etc.
“Who have received the law by the
disposition of angels, and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:53)
For if the word
spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and
disobedience received a just recompence of reward; (Hebrews 2:2)
And he said, The
Lord
came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth
from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints [cf., Ps.
68:17: “angels”]: from his right hand went
a fiery law for them. (Deuteronomy 33:2)
In the hand of a
mediator — I stood between the Lord
and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord:
for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the
mount; saying, (Deuteronomy 5:5)
This adds more information to Exodus 24:12ff as to
the instrumentality God used to give the Law, like as Christ sent His
angel to speak to John. (Rv. 22:8,9) You might as well call that a
tradition, or say that because one can interpretively expand upon
texts then this supports the tradition of Rome being equal with
Scripture, even if it lacks even one example (like praying to the
departed in Heaven). The assurance for which is based upon the
premise of Rome's assured infallibility, which itself is a tradition.
And thus essentially Rome presumes to be as one of the inspired
writers of Scripture, and effectively adds to the canon.
Thus once again in review, among other things, we
see that the RC Scott holds that being the historical instrument and
steward of Scripture means being an infallible authority, and thus
the assurance of Truth, which means that the NT church itself is
invalidated, and Scripture is not his basis for assurance.
And to be consistent with his assertion that only
this external authority can determine which books are in Scripture,
then no one could could know or can know any book was inspired of God
before the church of Rome did so (which for an infallible canon, was
over 1400 years after the last book was penned).
And as apparently rejecting a Baptist preaching
the message of Acts 10:36-43 is not rejecting Christ, then one who
believes the message has not accepted Christ either, despite the
testimony of many former Prots who converted and bring some life to
Rome.
And that only an exterior authority can
tell us what books belong in the Bible, which means no one could know
what books were Scripture before the church of Rome infallibly
defined the canon (which took over 1400 years after the last book was
penned).
And since what Scripture actually teaches is
Tradition, then this supports the ancient amorphous oral Tradition
of Rome, even if such an event of the Assumption of Mary is not
recorded in Scripture, much less the coronation of any saint (which
awaits the Lord's Return.)
Supplementary
And
it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his
life: that he may learn to fear the Lord
his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do
them: (Deuteronomy 17:19)
To the law and to
the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it
is because there
is no light in
them. (Isaiah 8:20)
These were more
noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with
all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether
those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
I have often referenced how the church began upon
Scriptural substantiation, but let me go into how Scripture even
became to be the supreme standard. The actual writing seems to have
begun with a man with a Hebrew lineage and an encounter with a
burning bush out of which came a voice claiming to be God, and giving
him a mission and marching orders. God abundantly manifested He was
indeed the living God, and that Moses was the man of God through whom
He would work (along with Aaron his bro, who was also able to make a
golden calve by throwing gold into the fire — if you believe
his account — and who was an accommodation to the protests of
Moses).
And God gave powerful supernatural attestation to
Moses and the Law that came by him, by which God also was affirming
the faith and virtue of Abraham and his faith, an overall Godly man
who also had supernatural attestation, thus Moses was a Hebrew.
Through Moses came the written Law, and we usually
hold he wrote most of the Pentateuch as well. And which, as written,
became the standard for obedience and the establishment of further
truth claims as being of God.
And like a true man of God writings of God
possessed a Divine character, as Ps. 19 and 119 especially expresses,
and with God attesting to them, and thus they would be established as
being of God due to this enduring character and attestation, these
being Divine classics. But like men of God, sometimes this was more
evident with some than with others.
And part of this attestation of Holy Writ was by
the affirmation of those who, in complimentary fashion, evidenced
they were of God by conformity to what had prior been established,
thus the Lord and His apostles established their Truth claims upon
Scriptural substantiation, while the attestation given to these men
and their message further affirmed those writings as being of God.
And thus as Scripture attests to writings of God
being recognized as being so, and the rejection of others that were
not, thus Sola Scriptura materially provides for the consequence of
this, a canon, and without an infallible magisterium being required,
while formally the way of God's salvation and basic obedience (even
if under the Law) has always been provided once Scripture appeared.
Note also that the greatest supernaturally
attestation was overall given to those who provided new covenantal
teaching, though complimentary to that which was before it, as seen
being with Moses and the Lord and His apostles, though men like
Elijah also confirmed such. This is part of Scriptural substantiation
in word and in power, as such is the Kingdom of God (1Cor. 4:20) not
mere declaration. Christianity is a supernatural religion, and thus
greater the claims then more correspondent attestation is required
(which Rome fails of in the light of her claims and size, and is
contrast to). Thus “with great
power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord
Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.” (Acts 4:33)
And fear came upon every soul: and
many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. (Acts 2:43)
And of the rest durst no man join
himself to them: but the people magnified them. (Acts 5:13)
And thus the NT realized more correspondent unity
— and the more accountable they were, as Ananias and his wife
Sapphira found out.
And as the church began upon Scriptural
substantiation in word and in power, so it must continue to evidence
it is of the church of the living God, grounded in and supporting the
Truth, in conformity with Scripture and in faith, character
(including patience in tribulation), virtue, power. Etc. With the
more it corresponds to the apostolic testimony, (2Cor. 6:4-10) then
the more this is manifest. And I certainly much fail here.
Yet the most important evidential witness to the
resurrection of Christ is the transformed heart and life resulting
from regeneration, and that effects a Christian life. By which a true
church gains its members, and thus requires holiness and anointed
preaching of the gospel of grace, which convicts souls “of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) That they
are damned and destitute sinners before an infinitely holy and
perfectly just almighty God, and thus must cast all their faith on
the risen Lord Jesus to saved them by His sinless blood shed for
them. And thus be baptized and follow Him.
And which infant baptism works against, Catholic
or Protestant, especially treated afterward Christians, and not in
desperate need of their day of salvation.
Which is part of the reliance upon ritual for that
which results in a manifest life-changing relationship with Christ,
and is a product of institutionalized religion and false doctrine,
and constitutes the most fundamental difference between a fundamental
evangelical type church and its Catholic or institutionalized
Protestant counterparts (besides recognized cults which, as with
Rome, make their church the OTC, but are far more controlling).
However, what we see today is spiritual declension
in Christianity overall, and the rise of atheism and non-commitment,
which will lead to persecution, which partly will be judgment upon
the church, as it must begin with us, to bring a separated remnant to
stand with the Lord in these latter days. May that tribe increase,
and we all be part out it in faith, truth and love. Amen.
