If Protestants agree with the R. Catholic church on somethings, why don't they recognize her supreme authority in others things, instead of relying upon their own finite discernment?
The Divine inspiration of Scripture is affirmed by both of us, and which is affirmed to be assuredly infallible, but which appeals to human understanding for assurance, (1Jn. 5:13) and affirms being like a noble Berean to determine how know that he/she is listening to this nebulous "Living Voice of the Holy Ghost." and to which God provides other attestation which complements, not contradicts it.
But this means we affirm the core essentials we both concur on, as being truths revealed by the Holy Ghost to the Church, being well substantiated by the Scriptures, while contending against those who deny them, which is typically the result of effectively exalting the authority of mortal men and or an office above the Scriptures. And thus we also contend against those teaching of Rome that also commit the error of the Pharisees. Mk. 7:6-13)
While God Himself reasons with men in seeking to convince them (Is. 1:18; Acts 17:2) this does allow for disagreement, and thus the appeal to an AIM, implicit trust in which results in unity. But this is not how unity was achieved in the Bible, nor is unity by itself a goal of the Godly, as division is actually necessary because of truth, and is better than unity in error.
Instead, unity is the result of God affirming His truth to those who hear and obey it, and thus the most essential unity is that of the "unity of the Spirit," (Eph. 4:3) resulting from faith in the truth which the established and infallible Scriptures teach. And Rome's AIM is not one of them, but is a substitute.
In addition, your charge that we endlessly criticize what is "revealed" until we satisfy our intellect can just a easily be leveled at RC apologists, beginning its rejection of the supremacy of only objective source which is assuredly infallible. It also ignore the rich history of evangelical literature, from Matthew Henry's complete commentary to the thousands of hymns penned by Fanny Crosby, to which i know of nothing comparable in scope and depth.
As regards differences, it should also be understand that evangelicals typically experienced a dramatic transformation due to faith in the the gospel of grace preached from the Scriptures, after having been in churches where it was not really preached nor the Bible was emphasized. Due to that and their resultant Scripture and relationship-centered faith they are alarmed at doctrines which lack Scriptural warrant and militate against it (such as praying to departed saints) and which much depend upon tradition and the infallible magisterium.
----------------------
If you believe the gospel what don't you believe the historical claims of the Roman Catholic church?
...your premise is that since Rome gave us the Bible and its gospel, then we are bound to believe her interpretation of history However, this assertion is fallacious on different levels, but the short version is that Rome's basis for her formulaic (scope and content-based) assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), -by which she declares her interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture to be infallible - is herself, while the only assuredly infallible objective authority are the Scriptures, which reproves her. We are no more bound to implicitly accept whatever Rome declare must be, than the Lord and disciples had to accept binding teachings of the Jewish magisterium, but should be like the noble Berean and examine it in the light of the assuredly infallible word. And my next to last post to you dealt with the interpretative necessity both Roman Catholics and Protestants must deal with.
Extended:
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith and its fruits which does. (Rm. 2:28,29; Heb. 6:9; 1Thes. 1:4) As God could have raised up from stones children to Abraham, so he can build His church using stones which realize their destitute helpless condition, unable to escape Hell or merit heaven by their work, but have essential Abrahamic faith in the Lord Jesus to save them by His blood and righteousness. (Acts 8:36-39; 1Pet. 2:5,6)
2. Even if Rome could lay claim to being the same church of the 4th century, with her infallible doctrines actually having unanimous consent of the fathers as she alleges they do, this would not make her an assuredly infallible interpreter of Scripture. For unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals. (Mk. 7:6-13; Rm. 10:2,3)
3. The reproof of Jesus of the Jewish magisterium while it yet sat in Moses seat, (Mt. 23:2) by Scripture, and His own statements as to the basis for His authority (see 5729) not only disallows the premise that historical lineage and stewardship of Scripture and the faith confers an AIM (assuredly infallible magisterium), but it evidences Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority, which Scripture affirms it is. (2Tim. 3:16)
4. The Holy Spirit commends lovers of truth who examined the teaching of the very apostles by the Scriptures to ascertain their veracity, (Acts 17:11) and to which Jesus and the apostles and preachers abundantly appealed to, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) as well as miracles and their testimony. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:1-12; Rm. 15:19, etc.)
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly declared (content and scope-based) formula.
6. While the teaching magisterium was crucial in the O.T. and now still is (and those who hold to SS affirm it is), the faith was not preserved due to an AIM, and writings were correctly recognized as being Scripture without one. As regards the former, God raised up prophets who reproved the magisterium as needed, and a remnant of faithful was preserved, while the authenticity of a prophet was not necessarily established by formal succession, but by conformity to that which was written, and Divine attestation, with speaking falsely in the name of the Lord being a capital offense. (Dt. 18:20; Jer. 20:1-6; 28:1-17)
As concerns Scripture, the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects, and attestation by men who had the same because of faith in them. Making official lists is valid, but such are not responsible for the authority for Scriptural writings, nor for their enduring popularity.
7. Even if formal historical linkage via an unbroken succession of magistrates were an essential basis for the magisterial office, unlike under the Old Testament, then Rome has fallen short, as its line includes immoral, impenitent Popes (including before they were enthroned) who would not qualify as Christians and church members, let alone bishops, and thus spiritually such did not belong to any church, but would be excluded or cast out of a valid N.T. church. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Historical basis for Rome's claim to authority, Pt. 1
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/good-morning-pope-starshine-part-2.html
I continue to be amazed at the attempts by RCAs to both suppose that a historical linkage would establish a church as a or the one true one - as if God could not raise up sons of Abraham from stones (Mt. 3:9) - rather than demonstrable Scriptural faith. And then the church it attempts to link itself to did not even have Peter as its pastor, who is not even mentioned at all, while its teachings are contrary to the present Roman church, chapter by chapter.
As for the 3 proof texts, Rom 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world,"
that is not surprising, due to its strategic location (all roads lead to..) with perhaps 800,000 people, nor is its propagation unique, for
1Thes. 1:8: “For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing
As for Rm. 15:14 and being "full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another,"
That they were full of goodness is true, thank God, yet the election of Thessalonians was affirmed by Paul, who said “work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope,” (1Thes. 1:3) and that “your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth,” (2Thes. 1:3) and they and the church in Philadelphia had tested, enduring faith. (Rev. 3:10)
As for all knowledge, Paul also affirmed even the problematic Corinthians, who were said to “abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us," (2Cor. 8:7) “That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.” “So that ye come behind in no gift.” (1Cor. 1:5,7a)
As for being able also to admonish one another, the text does not say admonish other churches, while the Thessalonians and Colossians were called to do admonish the brethren, (1Thes. 5:14; Col. 3:16)
And if we are to make Rome the ruling church due to such words, then Titus must have been the first pope, as he was charged, “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” (Titus 2:15)
As for Rom 16:16: “Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” What the text does not says is “the churches of Christ submit to you,” and if “salute” (KJV) means submit then they were to do so to a women, (Rm. 16:6) while what it (aspazomai) means is “welcome” or “greet,” and its use here does not show a recognition of preeminence.
While this does not minimize the virtues of this church, “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called saints,” (Rm. 1:7) likely meeting in various assemblies, (Rm. 16:5) it does not lend itself to the idea of a centralized command and control from Rome, under a supreme Caesarian-papacy, reigning fro a papal palace, with its autocratic assuredly infallible magisterium. And what Paul after presenting the gospel which Rome contradicts with its gospel of works-merit, and preeminence based upon ecclesiastical papal progeny, the manifestly God-ordained (contra Rome) apostle warns to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them, “ who, among other things, “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16:17,18) And which indicts Rome, as while “the simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going,” (Proverbs 14:15) by searching the Scriptures with heart to know and obey truth (Acts 17:11) the Biblically perverse practices and presumptions of an impenitent Rome are made manifest, as well as any we have.
=========================
First, the idea that the promise is a succession of churches with their base in the same geographical location as this church is absurd according to the Book of Romans itself as well as other texts! This is not the Old Covenant but the new, and it is not physical or formal lineage that establishes one as a true man of God nor a body as the one true church (OTC), but Abrahamic-type faith in the apostolic gospel of grace. And which is not one that makes works meritorious for salvation, as per Rome, but is a righteousness imputed by faith.
The error of Rome corresponds to that of the Pharisees, who presumed that physical lineage and formal rituals established authenticity. (Jn. 8:39) However both the Baptist and the Lord Jesus reproved this as presumption, as does the apostle Paul:
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? {8} Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: {9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. " (Matthew 3:7-9; cf. Jn. 8:44; Rm. 2;28.29)
The church exists and endures by faith, and its conformity must be with that which is written most essentially that being the gospel of grace, with its attestation from God, is the basis for the claim to authenticity, by a person of God or a church. And if God can raise up from stones sons of Abraham, He can do the like to build his Church of the born again.
Thus if you want to lay claim to being of the Biblical church of Roman, especially by using Scripture, claiming some sort of physical or ecclesiastical lineage will not do it, and instead your church must demonstrate it conforms to the Scriptures (and Paul directs the Romans there: Rm. 1:2; 3:4,10; 4:3,17,23; 8:36; 9:13,17,33; 10:11,15; 11:2,8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,15,21, 16:26,27; etc.),
But instead what Rome's infallible claim to be the infallible OTC is effectively based upon is her own claim to be assuredly infallible. Argue against that if you want.
2. You quote me Rm. 16:20 as if never read it, and if what i stated is irrelevant, while by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” we see that besides geography having nothing to do with what constitutes the OTC, there is nothing in the commendations or promises afforded Rome that would make her the head of all other churches, and the fact that none of them are told to look to Rome as such is one reason why your most resort to your extrapolation extreme ecclesiastical eisegesis.
I showed similar commendations before (see here), as invoking the book of Romans seems to be lasted papal polemic for purchase, but the promise of Rm. 16:20 is not unique to the Roman believers, rather Paul is simply telling them as believers the promise which is given to all true believers, that ultimately by obedient faith, “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us,” (Romans 8:37) and thus, “I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.” (1 John 2:13a) And, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. " (James 4:7)
And this is an Old Testament promise given to all believers. Thus it is applies to Protestants as well, whom Rome considers saved.
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 4:2-3)
In the end, your attempted exegesis by wresting and stretching Scripture is simply a negative testimony for Rome, which would make any Berean type souls turn away from her.
==============================
Rom 16:20 must include the Roman Church, for it is that Church which it was written to [and uniquely promises that the devil will be crushed under their feet.]
Of course it includes the Roman church [but you make them the unique recipients of it]. The issue is that it is a promise to all who continue in the faith, else the other texts would be a lie.
This unique statement is found only once in the NT. No other local church receives such a particular and explicit promise as this.
As we shall see, both the particular aspect as well as the hermeneutic is a problem.
I have already showed you that the historical argument in invalid, while argument here rests upon Rome in particular being given this promise. However, the word for "your" (G2257) as in "your feet" is the exact same word as "our" right below it, as in "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." And the "you" at the end is different.
This word is used 4 other times in the N.T. all translated rightly as "ours" in the Roman Catholic DRB as well as the KJV (which two Bible are almost always in concurrence).
In contrast, the word translated "you" (G5216) occurs 360 times in the KJV as "you" or "your" (incld. Rm. 1:8).
Moreover, the word for "shall" is not in the Greek in 16:20, and "bruse" just measn "broken," "bruise, etc. (AndG1161 theG3588 GodG2316 of peaceG1515 shall bruiseG4937 SatanG4567) Thus the DRB renders this a prayer, "And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily."
I do not know what the liberal (as critical Catholics complain) NAB says, but that is irrelevant.
Perhaps a reason can be found to use "shall" and "your" rather than "our," but this would still not be a promise only to these believers.
Furthermore, i am sure this has not been infallibly defined, but is a product of your FHR (Fallible Human Reasoning), and as such, would serve to justify Rome's interpretation of 1Pt. 1:20, although she misinterprets that herself.
But if you want to use your hermeneutic to exalt one church as head due to a possible statement of questionable uniqueness, there is another one the Lord showed me which we can only imagine how you might react to if it was in the letter to the Romans.
Turning to the letter to the Ephesians, cp. 3, we see that.
19 "ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21: In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
The "ye" in v. 19 is not there, but it is in v. 22, and thus this could be construed to mean this unique pertained to the Ephesian church, which was built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, a weighty phrase indeed. However, as with Rm. 16:20, it is not unique, but pertains to all who believe on the Lord Jesus unto His coming.
May we all do so, by and in His grace, and to His glory
=================================
The issue is how the church that was the subject of Paul's address in Rome is construed to be the predecessor to one under what was to be a Perpetuated Petrine Papacy. It is hardly conceivable that this church was begun by Peter, and even less that Peter was in Rome, as Paul would have not needed to address it, and is unlikely to have built on another man's foundation, much less neglect to even mention Peter anywhere in it, esp. amidst the multitude of his salutations in cp. 16.
And of course, in no other epistles is there any reminder to remember or pray for Peter, or obey him, as would be expected if he were reigning over the church as its supreme head after the manner which Rome has him.
I do see Peter being the leader among brethren of the apostles and initially of the early church, and exercising a general pastoral office, but as one living no better than they (the tannner's house was near the sea for a reason), and not being looked to as a supreme CEO or demi-god that his supposed successors became. Nor do i do see formal provision made for papal predecessors, or even for any of the original apostles save for Judas (unlike James), which was necessary to maintain the 12 foundational apostles, (Eph. 2:20; Rv. 21:14) though some, including Luther, may somewhat functionally operate as such, or as prophets.
And being married (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:5) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) is more fitting for a evangelical preacher:)
In addition, Romans is hardly the most fitting book to use as a foundation for a religion that infallibly taught that saved believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those very works which have been done in God. And that eternal life is both a gift as well as reward to their good works and merits.” (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)
And that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God merits the attainment of eternal life itself. (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32)
If Rome had a predecessor it spiritually would be the church of the Galatians.
However, the fundamental error of Michael and Rome here is that of presuming that historical linkage, real or contrived, constitutes the basis for legitimacy and authority, which is does not, although up thru the 12 apostles this was a necessary attribute.
But while Jews thought this gave them legitimacy as Jews, both the Baptist and the Lord set them straight. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44) An God can yet raised up stones to build His church.
What Paul taught the Romans was that it is not historical linkage back to Abraham that constitutes legitimacy, but Abrahamic type faith in the gospel of grace, (Rm. 2:28,29) as it by such that the church has its members and endures, while those who were born after the flesh persecutes them who are born after the Spirit. (Gal. 4:29) And which is Rome's legacy, despite claims of her self-proclaimed infallible magisterium.
I continue to be amazed at the attempts by RCAs to both suppose that a historical linkage would establish a church as a or the one true one - as if God could not raise up sons of Abraham from stones (Mt. 3:9) - rather than demonstrable Scriptural faith. And then the church it attempts to link itself to did not even have Peter as its pastor, who is not even mentioned at all, while its teachings are contrary to the present Roman church, chapter by chapter.
As for the 3 proof texts, Rom 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world,"
that is not surprising, due to its strategic location (all roads lead to..) with perhaps 800,000 people, nor is its propagation unique, for
1Thes. 1:8: “For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing
As for Rm. 15:14 and being "full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another,"
That they were full of goodness is true, thank God, yet the election of Thessalonians was affirmed by Paul, who said “work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope,” (1Thes. 1:3) and that “your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth,” (2Thes. 1:3) and they and the church in Philadelphia had tested, enduring faith. (Rev. 3:10)
As for all knowledge, Paul also affirmed even the problematic Corinthians, who were said to “abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us," (2Cor. 8:7) “That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.” “So that ye come behind in no gift.” (1Cor. 1:5,7a)
As for being able also to admonish one another, the text does not say admonish other churches, while the Thessalonians and Colossians were called to do admonish the brethren, (1Thes. 5:14; Col. 3:16)
And if we are to make Rome the ruling church due to such words, then Titus must have been the first pope, as he was charged, “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” (Titus 2:15)
As for Rom 16:16: “Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” What the text does not says is “the churches of Christ submit to you,” and if “salute” (KJV) means submit then they were to do so to a women, (Rm. 16:6) while what it (aspazomai) means is “welcome” or “greet,” and its use here does not show a recognition of preeminence.
While this does not minimize the virtues of this church, “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called saints,” (Rm. 1:7) likely meeting in various assemblies, (Rm. 16:5) it does not lend itself to the idea of a centralized command and control from Rome, under a supreme Caesarian-papacy, reigning fro a papal palace, with its autocratic assuredly infallible magisterium. And what Paul after presenting the gospel which Rome contradicts with its gospel of works-merit, and preeminence based upon ecclesiastical papal progeny, the manifestly God-ordained (contra Rome) apostle warns to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them, “ who, among other things, “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16:17,18) And which indicts Rome, as while “the simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going,” (Proverbs 14:15) by searching the Scriptures with heart to know and obey truth (Acts 17:11) the Biblically perverse practices and presumptions of an impenitent Rome are made manifest, as well as any we have.
=========================
First, the idea that the promise is a succession of churches with their base in the same geographical location as this church is absurd according to the Book of Romans itself as well as other texts! This is not the Old Covenant but the new, and it is not physical or formal lineage that establishes one as a true man of God nor a body as the one true church (OTC), but Abrahamic-type faith in the apostolic gospel of grace. And which is not one that makes works meritorious for salvation, as per Rome, but is a righteousness imputed by faith.
The error of Rome corresponds to that of the Pharisees, who presumed that physical lineage and formal rituals established authenticity. (Jn. 8:39) However both the Baptist and the Lord Jesus reproved this as presumption, as does the apostle Paul:
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? {8} Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: {9} And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. " (Matthew 3:7-9; cf. Jn. 8:44; Rm. 2;28.29)
The church exists and endures by faith, and its conformity must be with that which is written most essentially that being the gospel of grace, with its attestation from God, is the basis for the claim to authenticity, by a person of God or a church. And if God can raise up from stones sons of Abraham, He can do the like to build his Church of the born again.
Thus if you want to lay claim to being of the Biblical church of Roman, especially by using Scripture, claiming some sort of physical or ecclesiastical lineage will not do it, and instead your church must demonstrate it conforms to the Scriptures (and Paul directs the Romans there: Rm. 1:2; 3:4,10; 4:3,17,23; 8:36; 9:13,17,33; 10:11,15; 11:2,8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,15,21, 16:26,27; etc.),
But instead what Rome's infallible claim to be the infallible OTC is effectively based upon is her own claim to be assuredly infallible. Argue against that if you want.
2. You quote me Rm. 16:20 as if never read it, and if what i stated is irrelevant, while by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” we see that besides geography having nothing to do with what constitutes the OTC, there is nothing in the commendations or promises afforded Rome that would make her the head of all other churches, and the fact that none of them are told to look to Rome as such is one reason why your most resort to your extrapolation extreme ecclesiastical eisegesis.
I showed similar commendations before (see here), as invoking the book of Romans seems to be lasted papal polemic for purchase, but the promise of Rm. 16:20 is not unique to the Roman believers, rather Paul is simply telling them as believers the promise which is given to all true believers, that ultimately by obedient faith, “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us,” (Romans 8:37) and thus, “I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.” (1 John 2:13a) And, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. " (James 4:7)
And this is an Old Testament promise given to all believers. Thus it is applies to Protestants as well, whom Rome considers saved.
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 4:2-3)
In the end, your attempted exegesis by wresting and stretching Scripture is simply a negative testimony for Rome, which would make any Berean type souls turn away from her.
==============================
Rom 16:20 must include the Roman Church, for it is that Church which it was written to [and uniquely promises that the devil will be crushed under their feet.]
Of course it includes the Roman church [but you make them the unique recipients of it]. The issue is that it is a promise to all who continue in the faith, else the other texts would be a lie.
This unique statement is found only once in the NT. No other local church receives such a particular and explicit promise as this.
As we shall see, both the particular aspect as well as the hermeneutic is a problem.
I have already showed you that the historical argument in invalid, while argument here rests upon Rome in particular being given this promise. However, the word for "your" (G2257) as in "your feet" is the exact same word as "our" right below it, as in "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." And the "you" at the end is different.
This word is used 4 other times in the N.T. all translated rightly as "ours" in the Roman Catholic DRB as well as the KJV (which two Bible are almost always in concurrence).
In contrast, the word translated "you" (G5216) occurs 360 times in the KJV as "you" or "your" (incld. Rm. 1:8).
Moreover, the word for "shall" is not in the Greek in 16:20, and "bruse" just measn "broken," "bruise, etc. (AndG1161 theG3588 GodG2316 of peaceG1515 shall bruiseG4937 SatanG4567) Thus the DRB renders this a prayer, "And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily."
I do not know what the liberal (as critical Catholics complain) NAB says, but that is irrelevant.
Perhaps a reason can be found to use "shall" and "your" rather than "our," but this would still not be a promise only to these believers.
Furthermore, i am sure this has not been infallibly defined, but is a product of your FHR (Fallible Human Reasoning), and as such, would serve to justify Rome's interpretation of 1Pt. 1:20, although she misinterprets that herself.
But if you want to use your hermeneutic to exalt one church as head due to a possible statement of questionable uniqueness, there is another one the Lord showed me which we can only imagine how you might react to if it was in the letter to the Romans.
Turning to the letter to the Ephesians, cp. 3, we see that.
19 "ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21: In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
The "ye" in v. 19 is not there, but it is in v. 22, and thus this could be construed to mean this unique pertained to the Ephesian church, which was built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, a weighty phrase indeed. However, as with Rm. 16:20, it is not unique, but pertains to all who believe on the Lord Jesus unto His coming.
May we all do so, by and in His grace, and to His glory
=================================
The issue is how the church that was the subject of Paul's address in Rome is construed to be the predecessor to one under what was to be a Perpetuated Petrine Papacy. It is hardly conceivable that this church was begun by Peter, and even less that Peter was in Rome, as Paul would have not needed to address it, and is unlikely to have built on another man's foundation, much less neglect to even mention Peter anywhere in it, esp. amidst the multitude of his salutations in cp. 16.
And of course, in no other epistles is there any reminder to remember or pray for Peter, or obey him, as would be expected if he were reigning over the church as its supreme head after the manner which Rome has him.
I do see Peter being the leader among brethren of the apostles and initially of the early church, and exercising a general pastoral office, but as one living no better than they (the tannner's house was near the sea for a reason), and not being looked to as a supreme CEO or demi-god that his supposed successors became. Nor do i do see formal provision made for papal predecessors, or even for any of the original apostles save for Judas (unlike James), which was necessary to maintain the 12 foundational apostles, (Eph. 2:20; Rv. 21:14) though some, including Luther, may somewhat functionally operate as such, or as prophets.
And being married (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:5) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) is more fitting for a evangelical preacher:)
In addition, Romans is hardly the most fitting book to use as a foundation for a religion that infallibly taught that saved believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those very works which have been done in God. And that eternal life is both a gift as well as reward to their good works and merits.” (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)
And that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God merits the attainment of eternal life itself. (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32)
If Rome had a predecessor it spiritually would be the church of the Galatians.
However, the fundamental error of Michael and Rome here is that of presuming that historical linkage, real or contrived, constitutes the basis for legitimacy and authority, which is does not, although up thru the 12 apostles this was a necessary attribute.
But while Jews thought this gave them legitimacy as Jews, both the Baptist and the Lord set them straight. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44) An God can yet raised up stones to build His church.
What Paul taught the Romans was that it is not historical linkage back to Abraham that constitutes legitimacy, but Abrahamic type faith in the gospel of grace, (Rm. 2:28,29) as it by such that the church has its members and endures, while those who were born after the flesh persecutes them who are born after the Spirit. (Gal. 4:29) And which is Rome's legacy, despite claims of her self-proclaimed infallible magisterium.
By what authority
By what authority can Protestants judge, since the R. Catholic church has historical apostolic succession and claims to be infallible?
The issue is upon what basis the authenticity of this church is established, and by what objective standard does it judge by.
If you choose to assuredly establish this church by Scripture, appealing to our human reasoning, then you are appealing to Scripture as the supreme objective authority, which is contrary to the premise of Rome, which teaches such assurance cannot be realized except by faith in the assuredly infallible magisterium, which claim disallows any debate we can provide that the claim of Rome fails Scriptural warrant.
If you choose history and an unbroken succession of popes, then you have popes who could never have remained even as church members, let alone be ordained and remain as popes, but you fall into the presumption of the Jews, who supposed historical pedigree established them.
However, as it is written, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," and the authenticity of a true Jew and a true church is based upon Abrahamic type faith in the Biblical "gospel of the grace of God," (Acts 20:24b)
Which it does not teach that believers merit graces needed for the attainment of eternal life, (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010) that they have truly merited eternal life by those very works which have been done in God. (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)
It is by Scriptural faith that the church exists and has its members, (1Cor. 12:13) and by this faith it overcomes, (1Jn. 5:5) and its claim to be a true church, like that of a true man of God, is not by self-proclamation, but as said before, by Scriptural qualities; holiness and doctrine that conforms to the only objective source which is affirmed to be assuredly infallible, with the supernatural attestation, primarily transformed lives, that shows it is the church of the living God, versus its institutionalized counterpart which teaches for doctrines the mere traditions of men.
It is therefore the Scriptures, which material source you appealed to, that authorize the church, and which enables it to judge righteousness judgment.
In seeking to convert Protestants, RC's argue that they since they are fallble, then they need an infallible authority on doctrine, but which argumentation effectively appeals to their fallible human reasoning (FHR) to convince them to believe in the Assuredly Infallible Magisterium (AIM) which is protected from the fallible nature of FHR when they speak according to their Infallibly Declared Formula (IDF) If they do say so themselves.
And yet apart from infallible teachings, like in evangelical churches (who actually show more unity in core values and doctrine) Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, though who knows all of which ones are infallible.
-----------
"By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mk. 11:28)
The Jewish hierarchy challenged Jesus authority and He responded by asking them where John the Baptist got his baptism from. This was a problem because unlike the Levites, prophets did not become so by physical lineage, though a son of one might become one, nor was it necessarily by formal succession, though one might be anointed by one. With John the Baptist neither seems to have been the case, but the call and message of a prophet required some evident attestation that they and it were of God. In fact presuming to speak to the name of the Lord was a capital offense it became evident to they did not. But the problem for the powers that be was that they reproved those who sat in Moses seat, and the latter sometimes killed the former in response (occupational hazard). In the case of the Baptist, the hierarchy feared the people who rightly regarded John as prophet, (Mk. 11:28-33) but King Herod (who actually reverenced John) later removed John's head as a consequence of him reproving Herod for his illicit marriage.
Jesus also referenced his own works as being a “greater witness than that of John” as well as the then-existing Scriptures, (Jn. 5:36,39) in substantiating His claims and teachings. And he likewise reproved the Jews for presuming that physical lineage validated their claim to be sons of Abraham, (Jn. 8:39,44) a presumption which Paul also corrected. (Rm. 2:28,29) While under the Old Testament the magisterial teaching office was perpetuated through the Levitical priesthood, which was based upon physical lineage as well as formal ordination, this did not render them assuredly infallible interpreters of the Scriptures, and presumption to teach doctrines which were contrary to Scripture was reproved by the Lord and using Scripture. (Mk. 7:6-13) And it is self-evident in the New Testament that the Law, the Psalms and writings of the prophets (Lk. 24:27,44) had come to be accepted as Scripture without an infallible magisterium, although certainly that teaching office was important to that process.
As concerns Roman Catholicism, the claim is made his that her historicity, in which she claims she uniquely is the same church as that of the first century onward (including the fourth century when the canon of Scripture was largely settled from), confers upon her a unique interpretive authority, and even being more so, an assuredly infallible magisterium. And which office in turn infallibly interprets both history Scripture to mean that she is that one true church.*
However, as pointed out before, if her historical argument was accepted as a basis for her authenticity, the logic behind this claim would require us to submit to the Jewish magisterium in interpretation of Scripture, as they alone are explicitly declared to to be the stewards of Scripture, a least those which then existed. But by whose interpretation there would be no New Testament.
But as the church exists by faith, and overcomes the gates of Hell by it, and faith comes by hearing their word of God, and the Scriptures are the only source which are assuredly wholly inspired of God, then for those who accept Scripture it should be held as the supreme judge of faith and morals. And as God could essentially raise up from stones children to Abraham, so he can raised up a church using stones like Peter, who profess the essential truth by which the faith journey begins.
Yet the church does not exist estranged from history, for faith without works is dead, and the testimony and teaching of extra-Biblical believers works to influence understanding of faith, and of the Object of it. However, if they have any valid testimony and teaching then it is a result of having believed the word of God, which again Scripture is, and which itself was essentially established as being such by its qualities and the attestation given it by God, including effects which result from believing it. But as influential as such men are, they were not assuredly infallible, and all must be subject to warrant and conformity with that which is written (we know which writings of Biblical men were inspired by their inclusion therein). That said, the more one's testimony is effectual like that of Scripture then the more power he will have with men, and with God.
Other issues related to this is the uncertainty as to how many of all the writings of Rome are infallible, its inability to fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, and the degree of disagreement which Catholics and clergy are allowed to have and do have concerning those which are not, as well as the need to interpret both fallible and infallible teachings. Within Catholic scholarship there are two very diverse camps even as concerns interpretation of Scripture, while her laity evidence greater disagreement in basic moral issues in certain doctrines than her Evangelical counterparts.
How this relates to the doctrinal unity SS type evangelicals most universally have regards core essentials, and the unity of the Spirit as a result, and the degree they may disagree in secondary matters, is a further consideration, but this is long enough already.
It is true that Moses was infallible in writing the Pentateuch (i doubt most RC scholars believe that he did) as were the apostles in adding to the Scriptures.
But the authority of apostles who added new doctrines to that which was written was not based on the premise that they would be assuredly infallible whenever they defined faith and morals to the universal church, much less taught that the church would be because it declared it was. Rather, "by manifestation of truth" (2Cor. 4:2) they persuaded men, "reasoning out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2; 28:23) with a holiness, faith and teaching that conformed to and complemented that which was prior established as from God, (2Cor. 6:1-10; Acts 17:11) and which was accompanied by manifest supernatural attestation, (Rm. 15:18,9; 2Cor. 12:12) which is how it all began. God supernaturally worked in Abraham's life, and he and his holy faith became established as of God, and so forth.
The problem with Rome is that she essentially adds to the Scriptures by making her nebulous oral tradition equal to the Scriptures, and effectively presumes supremacy over them, while certain "infallible" teachings - including her claim to assured infallibility - lack Scriptural and Divine attestation. And she does not simply claim to be able to teach infallibly, but claims a formulaic assured infallibility, by which she renders her declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as her claim for Scriptural basis. Thus according to her interpretation only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
If the ground opened up and swallowed any who opposed her then that might allow such a claim, but this is not the case, and the implicit trust in her is not warrant, and any unity resulting from that is inferior in quality, if not quantity, to that is the result of Berean type hearts and its method or ascertaining truth.
It may be argued that this renders fallible human reasoning infallible, yet this is not was 2Pt. 1:20,21 censures as regards interpretation, and texts such as 1Jn. 5:13 sanction it in obtaining assurance, but it rests upon Scripture being assuredly infallible, which objective source is alone affirmed to be, while any degree of surety claimed by an advocate SS is contingent upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant, using principles of doctrinal exegesis it manifests.
Your is an old but invalid contention. It has prior been established here that not only did RCC not infallibly define all of what constituted sacred Scripture until over 1400 after the last book was penned, but that it was not exactly the same canon (2Esdras issue)
In addition, it is not councicular decrees that established the writings in the Bible as being Scriptures, as helpful as such decrees can be, but like a true man of God, it was and is due to its unique enduring qualities and the Divine attestation given it. The best a council can do is ratify the best seller list of those whose lives conform to what was established as from God, and His attestation. The God of Abraham was manifest prior to Moses speaking in His name, and as argued above, the Lord made it quite evident those who added doctrines were from Him. (Praying to the departed was not one of these teachings).
As a man and writings became progressively established as Divine they became the standard by which newer revelations, or those purporting to be such, were examined and substantiated by. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.) And by which Jesus reproved those who presumed to teach doctrines which were not. (Mk. 7:7-13)
While it was thru the church that the fullness of what constituted Scripture was realized, most writings therein were already established as such by Jesus time, without an infallible magisterium.
As for the Church, not the Scriptures, being the pinnacle and foundation of the truth, (1 Timothy 3:15) it is telling that sola eccelsia - that the church alone is the supreme authority on faith and morals, as it decides the extent of Divine revelation and its infallible meaning - is extrapolated out of a verse that simply says the church "[the] support (stulos) and hedraiōma (from hedraioō, stayed, ground, stable, settled, which only occurs here) [of] the truth."
This is hardly warrants the idea that the Roman Catholic church is the assuredly infallible source and judge of truth, rather than saying that the church, defined as only consisting of born again believers - and thus is manifested as the "church of the living God - supports the truth, and is of the truth, is grounded on it, or is the steward of it, all of which are Scriptural, but both the writers as well as the stewards of Holy Writ are to be subject to it, versus claiming a formulaic infallibility that renders all they proclaim as infallible, including its claim to be Scriptural, because it spoke on faith and morals to the whole church. When the church did so in the Bible, (Acts 15) we know that is was as it is contained therein, and which manifests that this teaching was wholly Scriptural. Rome itself may and has taught infallible truth, as does Protestantism, but it is the basis for an assured status that is the issue.
If you appeal to Scripture in seeking to establish sola ecclesia then that infers that the Scriptures are the superior authority. And what the Bible does not say is that all the church will teaches on faith and morals will be infallible; rather it teaches that the only objective source which is wholly inspired of God and thus is assuredly infallible, is the Scriptures. (2Tim 3:16)
The kingdom of God, or the authenticity of a church, is not in word, that of men declaring they are, but in power, in attributes and Divine attestation which conforms to that which as established as from God by the same.(1Cor. 4:20) Of which i come short, especially in heart. Insofar as our eye be single, setting our affection on things above, not on things on the heart, which can be lawful things but which edify not, which our whole bodies be full of light. (Mt. 6:22)
The issue is upon what basis the authenticity of this church is established, and by what objective standard does it judge by.
If you choose to assuredly establish this church by Scripture, appealing to our human reasoning, then you are appealing to Scripture as the supreme objective authority, which is contrary to the premise of Rome, which teaches such assurance cannot be realized except by faith in the assuredly infallible magisterium, which claim disallows any debate we can provide that the claim of Rome fails Scriptural warrant.
If you choose history and an unbroken succession of popes, then you have popes who could never have remained even as church members, let alone be ordained and remain as popes, but you fall into the presumption of the Jews, who supposed historical pedigree established them.
However, as it is written, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," and the authenticity of a true Jew and a true church is based upon Abrahamic type faith in the Biblical "gospel of the grace of God," (Acts 20:24b)
Which it does not teach that believers merit graces needed for the attainment of eternal life, (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010) that they have truly merited eternal life by those very works which have been done in God. (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)
It is by Scriptural faith that the church exists and has its members, (1Cor. 12:13) and by this faith it overcomes, (1Jn. 5:5) and its claim to be a true church, like that of a true man of God, is not by self-proclamation, but as said before, by Scriptural qualities; holiness and doctrine that conforms to the only objective source which is affirmed to be assuredly infallible, with the supernatural attestation, primarily transformed lives, that shows it is the church of the living God, versus its institutionalized counterpart which teaches for doctrines the mere traditions of men.
It is therefore the Scriptures, which material source you appealed to, that authorize the church, and which enables it to judge righteousness judgment.
In seeking to convert Protestants, RC's argue that they since they are fallble, then they need an infallible authority on doctrine, but which argumentation effectively appeals to their fallible human reasoning (FHR) to convince them to believe in the Assuredly Infallible Magisterium (AIM) which is protected from the fallible nature of FHR when they speak according to their Infallibly Declared Formula (IDF) If they do say so themselves.
And yet apart from infallible teachings, like in evangelical churches (who actually show more unity in core values and doctrine) Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, though who knows all of which ones are infallible.
-----------
"By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mk. 11:28)
The Jewish hierarchy challenged Jesus authority and He responded by asking them where John the Baptist got his baptism from. This was a problem because unlike the Levites, prophets did not become so by physical lineage, though a son of one might become one, nor was it necessarily by formal succession, though one might be anointed by one. With John the Baptist neither seems to have been the case, but the call and message of a prophet required some evident attestation that they and it were of God. In fact presuming to speak to the name of the Lord was a capital offense it became evident to they did not. But the problem for the powers that be was that they reproved those who sat in Moses seat, and the latter sometimes killed the former in response (occupational hazard). In the case of the Baptist, the hierarchy feared the people who rightly regarded John as prophet, (Mk. 11:28-33) but King Herod (who actually reverenced John) later removed John's head as a consequence of him reproving Herod for his illicit marriage.
Jesus also referenced his own works as being a “greater witness than that of John” as well as the then-existing Scriptures, (Jn. 5:36,39) in substantiating His claims and teachings. And he likewise reproved the Jews for presuming that physical lineage validated their claim to be sons of Abraham, (Jn. 8:39,44) a presumption which Paul also corrected. (Rm. 2:28,29) While under the Old Testament the magisterial teaching office was perpetuated through the Levitical priesthood, which was based upon physical lineage as well as formal ordination, this did not render them assuredly infallible interpreters of the Scriptures, and presumption to teach doctrines which were contrary to Scripture was reproved by the Lord and using Scripture. (Mk. 7:6-13) And it is self-evident in the New Testament that the Law, the Psalms and writings of the prophets (Lk. 24:27,44) had come to be accepted as Scripture without an infallible magisterium, although certainly that teaching office was important to that process.
As concerns Roman Catholicism, the claim is made his that her historicity, in which she claims she uniquely is the same church as that of the first century onward (including the fourth century when the canon of Scripture was largely settled from), confers upon her a unique interpretive authority, and even being more so, an assuredly infallible magisterium. And which office in turn infallibly interprets both history Scripture to mean that she is that one true church.*
However, as pointed out before, if her historical argument was accepted as a basis for her authenticity, the logic behind this claim would require us to submit to the Jewish magisterium in interpretation of Scripture, as they alone are explicitly declared to to be the stewards of Scripture, a least those which then existed. But by whose interpretation there would be no New Testament.
But as the church exists by faith, and overcomes the gates of Hell by it, and faith comes by hearing their word of God, and the Scriptures are the only source which are assuredly wholly inspired of God, then for those who accept Scripture it should be held as the supreme judge of faith and morals. And as God could essentially raise up from stones children to Abraham, so he can raised up a church using stones like Peter, who profess the essential truth by which the faith journey begins.
Yet the church does not exist estranged from history, for faith without works is dead, and the testimony and teaching of extra-Biblical believers works to influence understanding of faith, and of the Object of it. However, if they have any valid testimony and teaching then it is a result of having believed the word of God, which again Scripture is, and which itself was essentially established as being such by its qualities and the attestation given it by God, including effects which result from believing it. But as influential as such men are, they were not assuredly infallible, and all must be subject to warrant and conformity with that which is written (we know which writings of Biblical men were inspired by their inclusion therein). That said, the more one's testimony is effectual like that of Scripture then the more power he will have with men, and with God.
Other issues related to this is the uncertainty as to how many of all the writings of Rome are infallible, its inability to fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, and the degree of disagreement which Catholics and clergy are allowed to have and do have concerning those which are not, as well as the need to interpret both fallible and infallible teachings. Within Catholic scholarship there are two very diverse camps even as concerns interpretation of Scripture, while her laity evidence greater disagreement in basic moral issues in certain doctrines than her Evangelical counterparts.
How this relates to the doctrinal unity SS type evangelicals most universally have regards core essentials, and the unity of the Spirit as a result, and the degree they may disagree in secondary matters, is a further consideration, but this is long enough already.
It is true that Moses was infallible in writing the Pentateuch (i doubt most RC scholars believe that he did) as were the apostles in adding to the Scriptures.
But the authority of apostles who added new doctrines to that which was written was not based on the premise that they would be assuredly infallible whenever they defined faith and morals to the universal church, much less taught that the church would be because it declared it was. Rather, "by manifestation of truth" (2Cor. 4:2) they persuaded men, "reasoning out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2; 28:23) with a holiness, faith and teaching that conformed to and complemented that which was prior established as from God, (2Cor. 6:1-10; Acts 17:11) and which was accompanied by manifest supernatural attestation, (Rm. 15:18,9; 2Cor. 12:12) which is how it all began. God supernaturally worked in Abraham's life, and he and his holy faith became established as of God, and so forth.
The problem with Rome is that she essentially adds to the Scriptures by making her nebulous oral tradition equal to the Scriptures, and effectively presumes supremacy over them, while certain "infallible" teachings - including her claim to assured infallibility - lack Scriptural and Divine attestation. And she does not simply claim to be able to teach infallibly, but claims a formulaic assured infallibility, by which she renders her declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as her claim for Scriptural basis. Thus according to her interpretation only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
If the ground opened up and swallowed any who opposed her then that might allow such a claim, but this is not the case, and the implicit trust in her is not warrant, and any unity resulting from that is inferior in quality, if not quantity, to that is the result of Berean type hearts and its method or ascertaining truth.
It may be argued that this renders fallible human reasoning infallible, yet this is not was 2Pt. 1:20,21 censures as regards interpretation, and texts such as 1Jn. 5:13 sanction it in obtaining assurance, but it rests upon Scripture being assuredly infallible, which objective source is alone affirmed to be, while any degree of surety claimed by an advocate SS is contingent upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant, using principles of doctrinal exegesis it manifests.
Your is an old but invalid contention. It has prior been established here that not only did RCC not infallibly define all of what constituted sacred Scripture until over 1400 after the last book was penned, but that it was not exactly the same canon (2Esdras issue)
In addition, it is not councicular decrees that established the writings in the Bible as being Scriptures, as helpful as such decrees can be, but like a true man of God, it was and is due to its unique enduring qualities and the Divine attestation given it. The best a council can do is ratify the best seller list of those whose lives conform to what was established as from God, and His attestation. The God of Abraham was manifest prior to Moses speaking in His name, and as argued above, the Lord made it quite evident those who added doctrines were from Him. (Praying to the departed was not one of these teachings).
As a man and writings became progressively established as Divine they became the standard by which newer revelations, or those purporting to be such, were examined and substantiated by. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.) And by which Jesus reproved those who presumed to teach doctrines which were not. (Mk. 7:7-13)
While it was thru the church that the fullness of what constituted Scripture was realized, most writings therein were already established as such by Jesus time, without an infallible magisterium.
As for the Church, not the Scriptures, being the pinnacle and foundation of the truth, (1 Timothy 3:15) it is telling that sola eccelsia - that the church alone is the supreme authority on faith and morals, as it decides the extent of Divine revelation and its infallible meaning - is extrapolated out of a verse that simply says the church "[the] support (stulos) and hedraiōma (from hedraioō, stayed, ground, stable, settled, which only occurs here) [of] the truth."
This is hardly warrants the idea that the Roman Catholic church is the assuredly infallible source and judge of truth, rather than saying that the church, defined as only consisting of born again believers - and thus is manifested as the "church of the living God - supports the truth, and is of the truth, is grounded on it, or is the steward of it, all of which are Scriptural, but both the writers as well as the stewards of Holy Writ are to be subject to it, versus claiming a formulaic infallibility that renders all they proclaim as infallible, including its claim to be Scriptural, because it spoke on faith and morals to the whole church. When the church did so in the Bible, (Acts 15) we know that is was as it is contained therein, and which manifests that this teaching was wholly Scriptural. Rome itself may and has taught infallible truth, as does Protestantism, but it is the basis for an assured status that is the issue.
If you appeal to Scripture in seeking to establish sola ecclesia then that infers that the Scriptures are the superior authority. And what the Bible does not say is that all the church will teaches on faith and morals will be infallible; rather it teaches that the only objective source which is wholly inspired of God and thus is assuredly infallible, is the Scriptures. (2Tim 3:16)
The kingdom of God, or the authenticity of a church, is not in word, that of men declaring they are, but in power, in attributes and Divine attestation which conforms to that which as established as from God by the same.(1Cor. 4:20) Of which i come short, especially in heart. Insofar as our eye be single, setting our affection on things above, not on things on the heart, which can be lawful things but which edify not, which our whole bodies be full of light. (Mt. 6:22)
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Praying to creatd beings in Heaven
Why is praying the saints in Heaven wrong? The Bible tells to pray for each other, and Jesus Himself prayed to Lazarus when he was dead
The issue is not only what prayer means, but its object, and the spiritual relation that exists between God and man in the spiritual realm, and the separation of realms which God manifests. Thus communication between created heavenly beings and earthlings always were personal encounters, while relations between people on earth is not to be by telepathy.
Lazarus is not analogous to PTCBIH (praying to creatd beings in Heaven), as not only was this a command but it was to one on earth, while the case with PTCBIH is that they are in heaven and able to hear and respond to potentially billions of prayers simultaneously, an attribute of Deity never shown to have been given to man, and are purportedly making intercession to God. Lazarus likely had not yet ascended (that's another study) and was being address by the Lord, not for help but to obey, and if another had addressed Lazarus he would have been talking to the wall.
The foundational issue regarding PTDS is that of Scriptural warrant and conflation.
The Bible teaches abundantly on prayer, and in order to warrant PTCBIH one must find an approved example or teaching of it, and some insufficiency in Christ as regards immediate access or ability or compassion, etc. Yet the Bible provides just the opposite and clearly so. The advocate of PTCBIH is thus left seeking to extrapolate this out of analogy between earthly communications, supposing a complete correspondence to that between earth and heaven, and or a "God can do anything" hermeneutic, but which is a strained and problematic exegesis which cannot overcome the weight of evidence against it, and such attempts are typical of cults when faced with the same.
To substantiate that PTCBIH is Scriptural, one needs to, from the Bible (and in order of importance)
1. provide just one example, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where anyone besides heathen prayed to anyone else in heaven but the Lord.
2. provide one place where exhortations, commands or instruction on prayer directed believers to pray to the departed. ("i.e. "Our mother, who art in heaven...")..
3. show where believers cannot have direct access to Christ in heaven, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man, besides the Holy Spirit.
4. show where departed souls in heaven are taking prayer requests addressed to them.
5. show where the departed are given the Divine attribute of omniscience, so they can hear and process an infinite amount of prayer.
6. provide where making supplication to beings in heaven besides God is otherwise sanctioned, and where all aspects of how relations between created beings in heavenly and those on earth have a one to one correspondence with earthly relations. Or where directly praying telepathically to each other on earth is promoted.
5. provide where any communication between earthlings on earth and heavenly beings besides God took place apart from a personal visitation.
6. show where anyone else is called "Queen of heaven" other than Jer 44:17 ("But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven," who was a heavenly object of devotion and prayer.
7. Show where another basic necessary practice has zero examples and is contrary to what is stated on the issue, as who we are to pray to in heaven is.
Example, descriptions, instructions. See Bible prayers here
Gen. 15:2; 17:18; 18:23; 18:23-32; 24:12-14; 32:9-12; Ex. 25:22; 32:11-13;
33:12-19; Num. 6:23-26; 10:35-36; 11:11-16; 12:13-14; 14:13-19; 27:15-18; Dt. 3:23-25; 9:25; 9:26-29; 21:7-9; 26:5-10; Josh. 7:7-9;
Jdg 6:13; 6:15; 6:15-17; 6:36-37; 6:39; 13:8; 16:8; 1Sam.1:10-11; 2:1-10; 2Sam. 7:18-29; 24:17; 1Ki. 3:5-61; 17:20-21; 18:25-26;
18:27-37; 19:4; 2 Ki. 6:17-18; 19:15-19; 1Chr.4:10; 29:9-19; 14:11; 2Chr. 6:40; 14:11; 20:6-12; 30:18-19; Ezra 8:3; 9:5-15; Neh. 1:4,5;
1:4-11; 4:4-5; 9:5-38; Job 22:27; Ps. 4:1; 5:3; 6:9; 17:1; 35:13;
39:12; 42:8; 54:2; 55:1; 61:1; 64:1; 65:2; 66:19,20; 69:13; 72:15;
80:4; 84:8; 86:1,6; 86:6; 88:2,13; 90:1; 102:1,17; 109:4,7; 141:2,5;
142:1; 143:1; Prov. 15:8,29; 28:8; Is. 37:4; 38:2,3,5; 56:7; Jer. 7:16; 11:14; 26:19; Lam. 3:8,44; Ezek. 9:8; Dan. 9:3-19; Jonah 2:1-9;
Hab. 1:12-17; 3:2-18; Mat. 6:9-13; 11:25-27; 17:21; 21:22; 26:39; Lk. 1:9,13; 6:12; 18:10-13; 19:46; 23:30; 23:34; 23:46; Jn.11:41-42;
17:1-22; 17:1-26; Acts 1:14,24-25; 3:1; 6:4; 9:6; 10:2,31; 12:5;
16:13,16; Rm. 10:1; 12:12; 1Cor. 1:2; 7:5; 2Cor. 1:1; 9:14; 12:8;
Eph. 1:16-22; 3:13-21; 6:18; Phil. 1:4,9-11,19; 4:6; Col 1:9-13ff; 4:2; 1Thes. 3:10-13; 5:23,24; 2Thes. 1:10-12; 2:16-17; 1Tim. 4:2;
2Tim. 4:16; Heb. 2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19-22; 13:20-21; James 5:16,17; 1Pt. 4:7; Rev. 6:16-16; 22:202 0
Despite the lack of precedent and the evidence against in both precepts on prayer and the paracletous nature of Christ, if one yet insists on extrapolating praying to saints out of earthly relations, using a hermeneutic that there is no explicit command not to*, and "with God all things are possible," then they are not advised to debate Mormons or lesbians. Examples of the latter: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html
*There is no express command against consensual cannibalism (whoever dies first we will have for dinner) either, among other things. And while its basic prohibition is justly derived from Gn. 9:3,5,6 which establishes the source of man's food, yet in keeping with the foundational law of love, in dire circumstance of necessity it might be allowed (and with the Andes survivors).
But praying to the departed lacks both and example of such or evidence they could hear prayers, nor Biblically is their necessity or insufficiency in access to Christ and the Father by the Spirit. Praying to the departed thus testifies that one lacks the Spirit or the faith and communion with God in Christ that marks Biblical prayer (not that mine is not lacking). Perhaps the largest prayer meeting on earth will be to mountains. (Lk. 23:20; Lk. 6:16)
Friday, December 24, 2010
Re "Was Jesus death contrary to God's command against child sacrifice?
There is a vast difference between someone being compelled to die, and for a pagan deity, and one being willing to place himself in the hand of others who can kill him of their own will, in order to to save others.
There is nothing of the latter in the examples of sacrifice which God condemns; rather He condemns all sacrifice to false gods, and the innocent being compelled to die is murder. Thus today, as one poster said, "If you want to argue with those who offer human sacrifices to pagan gods [of pleasure, possessions and politics], look up 'abortion providers' in the Yellow Pages."
Ted Kennedy's hands were red because of the babies whose blood he shed, and if he died unrepentant, he is in Hell-fire no matter how nice his (Catholic) funeral and eulogies, and the same is true for all who reject the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, or who trust their works will merit them eternal life (which the LDS do, among others).
And if you do either, you will mourn having spurned your day of grace, and for having rejected "so great salvation" (Heb. 2:3) as so great a cost, by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13)
While Jesus was foreordained to die, this not mean human will is not excised to fulfill the plan of God, and was no "victim" in the sense that he had no power over His death, rather He plainly stated, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. {17} Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. {18} No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. " (John 10:16-18)
Moreover, as this link explains
Is there any place in the Hebrew Scriptures or Jewish tradition ... But at times the death of another human being atoned for the sins of the people. Three such biblical passages are Numbers 25:1-8; Exodus 32; and Second Samuel 21:1-14. In the first, the death of two people by the hand in Phinehas stops a plague against the people; in the second, the death of a large number of Israelites does the same thing; in the third, the impaling of the sons of King Saul again atones for the sins of the people. Make no mistake: it is the death of people that stops the plague or averts God's wrath. Rabbi Jacob Milgrom comments:
Phinehas's deed in slaying one Israelite leader suffices to ransom (kipper) Israel; God requires no additional victims. Kipper functions to avert the retribution, to nip it in the bud, to terminate it before it is fully exhausted.
Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia; New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. 477.
Milgrom mentions two other texts where the death of human beings functions to secure atonement:
The first, Exodus 32:26-29, deals with the apostasy of the golden calf where the Levites are called upon to slay the people, even their close relatives, indiscriminately -- to assuage the wrath of God. The second text, 2 Samuel 21:1-14. . .[shows that] the impalement of Saul's sons provided the needed ransom-expiation for ending the drought.
Ibid., p. 478
Likewise, in cases of accidental manslaughter, the killer would flee to a "city of refuge," but could not leave until the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:25-32). The high priest's death atoned for the manslaughterer's sin so that he himself could go free. This interpretation is held not only by Christians but is also found in the Talmud (Makkoth 11b):
If after the slayer has been sentenced as an accidental homicide the high priest dies, he need not go into exile. But is it not the exile that expiates? It is not exile that expiates, but the death of the high priest.
Translation as given in Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. 294. See likewise in Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 238 n. 2
Milgrom comments: "As the High Priest atones for Israel's sins through his cultic service in his lifetime...,so he atones for homicide through his death."
Milgrom, ibid.
Perhaps the most controversial passage that refers to atonement not just by the death of any human being, but through the sufferings and death of the Messiah, in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. In Talmudic times, this passage was understood to refer to the coming Messiah. In medieval times, especially under the influence of Rashi, the prevailing interpretation applied the passage to the people of Israel, though the messianic interpretation was still held by various sages. The relevant point here is that no one can object that the Isaiah passage is non-Messianic because God forbids human sacrifice. Though He surely forbids pagan sacrifice of human beings, there are examples where only the death of a guilty human being or the death of the priest can effect full atonement. Furthermore, the "servant" of Isaiah 53 voluntarily gives us his life; his death is not forced on him. In a later time, Jesus affirmed that his impending death was voluntary. Even though he seemed to go to death by the force of circumstance, he voluntarily placed himself in those circumstances, so that he could say: " lay down my life --only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (John 10:17-18). And, "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:12-13).
Martyrdom
In Jewish thought, the death of a martyr can be redemptive and atoning.
That martyrdom somehow counteracts the menace of sin and, therefore, has a redemptive quality is decidedly an early rabbinic theme, though not necessarily a central one...."Expiation for the coming world" underlines the significance of the notion for the martyrs themselves. But, the rabbinic conception is not limited to penance for sin...
Aharon Agus, The Binding of Isaac and Messiah: Law, Martyrdom and Deliverance in Early Rabbinic Religiosity (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), pp. 40-41.
Though it includes that conception. When we speak of martyrs, we are speaking of human beings whose death has atoning value. © Copyright 2010 Jews for Jesus All Rights Reserved
And, Does God endorse human sacrifice?
Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."
God forbids human sacrifice, but the critics have a handful of instances where they think God had people violate this one:
Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
Since God's intent never was that Abraham complete the sacrifice, this is hardly contradictory. For more on this subject, see Glenn Miller's essay here
Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
This is not referring to sacrifice, but to service. No one sacrificed fruits and liquors on an altar.
Leviticus 27: 28-9 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
Is this human sacrifice? No, it is judicial execution. Those among men who are "devoted" (charam) are those who worship false gods (Exodus 22:19 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed (charam.) or deceive others into doing so (Deut. 13:15).
Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord...
See our reply to this issue here.
2 Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."
Do not leave out verses 10-14a, which tell us that God was intreated AFTER Saul's bones were reclaimed and buried. It had NOTHING to do with the sons of Rizpah, etc., or any human sacrifice.
Ezekiel 20:26 I let them become defiled through their gifts--the sacrifice of every firstborn --that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.
This is not a case of endorsing human sacrifice, but a case of God giving rebellious peoples what they want and deserve by giving them freedom.
Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."
1 Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
God offering the essence of Himself is human sacrifice? Human sacrifice always involved victims who were either a) deceived; b) unwilling. Jesus was neither. For more on this subject, see Glenn Miller's essay here.
-JPH
---------------------------------------------------------
Your assumption that what God condemned in Deut 12:30-31 is the same as the death of Jesus ignores critical distinctions.
1. According to your hermeneutic, what God condemns the pagans for doing must be forbidden to Israel, yet God also condemned pagans offering up prayers and sacrifice to false gods. However, God commanded Israel to do the same, but this did sanctioning the pagan version.
2. Again, Jesus was not child sacrifice, (Deut 12:30-31) but he willingly offered himself.
3. If the suffering servant of Is. 53 is Israel as you suppose, then it would show that God is not opposed to the innocent becoming an atonement for sin.
4. The suffering servant is not Israel, who was not righteous or an atonement for the world, but a third party, thus “for the transgression of my people was he stricken. " (Isaiah 53:8)
Another point you are missing is that God shows atonement being made by the death of a human, and thus your remaining objection is that such were guilty. However, the scapegoat and atonement of Lv. 16 were animals without defect, and all the guilt of Israel was symbolically transferred to the scapegoat. And which atonement was a perpetual commandment, to be made once a year.
All of which corresponds to Is. 53, in which the “the arm of the LORD” which is not Israel, grows up and is punished for “our transgressions,” pouring out His soul to death, His soul for sin, by whose knowledge many shall be justified. While since about 1,00 after Christ Rabbi's attribute Is. 53 to Israel, there are exceptions
The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. From where do we learn this? From the saying [Isaiah 53:5], “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. (Zohar, Numbers, Pinchus
218a)
The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [Adam and David], will make his soul a trespass offering [Isaiah 53:10] as it is written next to this parashah “Behold my servant” [Isaiah 52:13]. (Midrash
Aseret Memrot)
Messiah Son of David who loves Jerusalem... Elijah takes him by the head... and says “You must bear the sufferings and wounds by which the Almighty chastises you for Israel’s sins” and so it is
written, He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. (Midrash Konen; 11th century)
More here:
http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/8_Messiah_Objection_Isaiah53_1/
http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/servant01.html
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/Messianic_Objections
You can contrive the Hebrew in your attempt to deny this, but the fact is that God commanded atonement, and human death can atone, and that Is. 53 speaks of this, and Christ voluntary consented to be the scapegoat atonement, and your attempt to disallow that by invoking the
prohibition on pagan sacrifices is invalid.
===========================================================================
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Miscellaneous Posts Re Roman Catholicism: Merit versus Grace
Rome teaches that believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those “very works which have been done in God.” And that eternal life is both a gift as well as reward to their good works and merits, (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, p. 43; cf. Canon 32, 1547) that believers merit graces needed for the attainment of eternal life. (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010)
Thus while “works of the law” are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith. This implies that the reason for the use of the term “works of the law” in such places as Romans 4 is to place such in contrast to “works of faith.” However, other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith. And the law being holy just and good, (Rm. 7:12) “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” (Gal. 3:21) while the “righteousness of the law” is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
Thus the problem is not with the manner of righteousness which the law upholds, but the manner of attaining it, which is not by any manner of merit of law-keeping, but by recognizing yourself as a law breaker and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ to save you by his blood, and which faith is imputed for righteousness. To be sure, the only manner of faith which is salvific is that which is of a confessional quality, meaning it confesses Jesus as the Lord in word and deed, with baptism being the first official expression of that faith.
The key difference as I see it between this and what Catholicism teaches is that it is not by any “merit of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5) not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. (2Tim. 1:9) And while Roman Catholicism seeks to make eternal life a gift as well as a merited reward, “rendered to their good works and merits,” it is either one or the other.
==================================
What do Protestants think a faith without works will save them, and they they do not need to become perfect?
While it is easy to broad brush evangelical faith, the reformers overall did not preach, easy believism, but held that a faith which is salvific is one which shows forth fruit fit for repentance and endures. Recently no less a figure then R.C. Sproul preached, “Since our righteousness proceeds from our justification, which is based upon the righteousness of Christ alone, we must never be deluded into thinking that our works of righteousness have any merit of their own. Yet as Protestants, zealously maintaining our doctrine of justification by faith alone, we must be ever mindful that the justification which is by faith alone is never by a faith that is alone. True faith is a faith that manifests itself in righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees and the scribes, for it is concerned with the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy.”
The issue is what perfection means, and its attainment. What the Bible most clearly teaches is that true believers, for which faith is not a one-time deal, are declared righteous and thus practice righteousness. While they do not attain unto complete perfection, as Christ is perfect, they are not only positionally made “to sit together , and heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Eph. 2:6) but upon death they “shall ever be with the Lord,” (1Thes. 4:17; 1Cor. 15; 2Cor. 5:6-8) and will be made like Him when He appears, (1Jn. 3:2) but who show yet judge the quality of their works. (1Cor. 3:8-15; 2Cor. 5:9-11)
Seeking to justify salvation by the grace of God thru merit, it is taught that such statements as “a man is not justified by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16a) is only excluding works of the law versus works of faith as gaining justification before God, as if two types of works were what are contrasted. However, that is manifestly not what is being distinguished, rather works versus faith is what is separated as regards what the actual basis for justification is, “that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Other texts do not mention “works of the law,” but simply say “works,” (Eph. 2:8,9; 2Tim. 1:9) showing that it is not by “works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5)
To be sure, the only manner of faith which is true and thus salvific faith is that which orders one’s life, as one cannot truly believe in the Lord Jesus without being moved to obey Him, and repent when convicted of failure to do so.
But rather than making works of the law inferior to works of faith, Paul affirms that the law is good, and that “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Gal. 3:21)
Moreover, the righteousness of the law is not abrogated, rather it is what those who live by faith are to fulfil. (Rm. 8:4)
And in making the distinction between vain belief and true faith, he further states, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” (Rm. 2:13) And thus when teaching on what actually justifies in cp. 4, he uses Abraham as the example.
And while the believer is not being “under the law, but under grace,” (Rm. 6:14) this does not refer to a life ungoverned by moral standards, as the basic moral laws of the O.T. are clearly upheld, along with teachings complementary to it being added, and a covenantal distinction made between that class and ceremonial law. But it refers to being saved by faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting Him for salvation by His blood and righteousness, rather than supposing one merits salvation it by full obedience to the law, as the inability to keep it perfectly actually shows man his need for mercy and the atonement. (Rm. 3,4)
It also means the moral life of the believer is governed not by looking at the letter of the law as his standard, or by seeking to justify himself thereby, but by a relationship with the law-giver, looking unto Jesus who kept the law in its full intent, and thru faith in whom the believer gains an acceptance which he could not achieve by confidence in his own righteousness, so that those who are led by His Spirit can grow towards the same.
May i and we do so more, and recover any lost ground where applicable.
====================
Thus while “works of the law” are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith. This implies that the reason for the use of the term “works of the law” in such places as Romans 4 is to place such in contrast to “works of faith.” However, other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith. And the law being holy just and good, (Rm. 7:12) “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” (Gal. 3:21) while the “righteousness of the law” is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
Thus the problem is not with the manner of righteousness which the law upholds, but the manner of attaining it, which is not by any manner of merit of law-keeping, but by recognizing yourself as a law breaker and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ to save you by his blood, and which faith is imputed for righteousness. To be sure, the only manner of faith which is salvific is that which is of a confessional quality, meaning it confesses Jesus as the Lord in word and deed, with baptism being the first official expression of that faith.
The key difference as I see it between this and what Catholicism teaches is that it is not by any “merit of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5) not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. (2Tim. 1:9) And while Roman Catholicism seeks to make eternal life a gift as well as a merited reward, “rendered to their good works and merits,” it is either one or the other.
==================================
What do Protestants think a faith without works will save them, and they they do not need to become perfect?
While it is easy to broad brush evangelical faith, the reformers overall did not preach, easy believism, but held that a faith which is salvific is one which shows forth fruit fit for repentance and endures. Recently no less a figure then R.C. Sproul preached, “Since our righteousness proceeds from our justification, which is based upon the righteousness of Christ alone, we must never be deluded into thinking that our works of righteousness have any merit of their own. Yet as Protestants, zealously maintaining our doctrine of justification by faith alone, we must be ever mindful that the justification which is by faith alone is never by a faith that is alone. True faith is a faith that manifests itself in righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees and the scribes, for it is concerned with the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy.”
The issue is what perfection means, and its attainment. What the Bible most clearly teaches is that true believers, for which faith is not a one-time deal, are declared righteous and thus practice righteousness. While they do not attain unto complete perfection, as Christ is perfect, they are not only positionally made “to sit together , and heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Eph. 2:6) but upon death they “shall ever be with the Lord,” (1Thes. 4:17; 1Cor. 15; 2Cor. 5:6-8) and will be made like Him when He appears, (1Jn. 3:2) but who show yet judge the quality of their works. (1Cor. 3:8-15; 2Cor. 5:9-11)
Seeking to justify salvation by the grace of God thru merit, it is taught that such statements as “a man is not justified by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16a) is only excluding works of the law versus works of faith as gaining justification before God, as if two types of works were what are contrasted. However, that is manifestly not what is being distinguished, rather works versus faith is what is separated as regards what the actual basis for justification is, “that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Other texts do not mention “works of the law,” but simply say “works,” (Eph. 2:8,9; 2Tim. 1:9) showing that it is not by “works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5)
To be sure, the only manner of faith which is true and thus salvific faith is that which orders one’s life, as one cannot truly believe in the Lord Jesus without being moved to obey Him, and repent when convicted of failure to do so.
But rather than making works of the law inferior to works of faith, Paul affirms that the law is good, and that “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Gal. 3:21)
Moreover, the righteousness of the law is not abrogated, rather it is what those who live by faith are to fulfil. (Rm. 8:4)
And in making the distinction between vain belief and true faith, he further states, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” (Rm. 2:13) And thus when teaching on what actually justifies in cp. 4, he uses Abraham as the example.
And while the believer is not being “under the law, but under grace,” (Rm. 6:14) this does not refer to a life ungoverned by moral standards, as the basic moral laws of the O.T. are clearly upheld, along with teachings complementary to it being added, and a covenantal distinction made between that class and ceremonial law. But it refers to being saved by faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting Him for salvation by His blood and righteousness, rather than supposing one merits salvation it by full obedience to the law, as the inability to keep it perfectly actually shows man his need for mercy and the atonement. (Rm. 3,4)
It also means the moral life of the believer is governed not by looking at the letter of the law as his standard, or by seeking to justify himself thereby, but by a relationship with the law-giver, looking unto Jesus who kept the law in its full intent, and thru faith in whom the believer gains an acceptance which he could not achieve by confidence in his own righteousness, so that those who are led by His Spirit can grow towards the same.
May i and we do so more, and recover any lost ground where applicable.
====================
While generalizations are often valid, and Protestantism has its general characteristics as does Catholicism, yet the former is not one particular Church, in the above generalization is far from uniform and is actually more of a recent declension, which is part of taking on form of the world and which is exists, which Catholicism knows of itself. The reformers overall preached repentance and an enduring faith that would bear fruit as salvific*, and today there exists basically three camps within Protestantism.
The first camp is that of liberal, institutionalized churches in which there is little emphasis upon the authority of the Bible, with little strong preaching and heartfelt worship, and the need for salvation is not pressed upon the hearers, and perfunctory professions substituting for such. Catholicism also overall suffers from this type of religion.
The second camp is basically that of churches which may emphasize the Bible and the need for salvation, some fundamentalist types of which may have high standards for Christian conduct while others more appeal to the flesh, but they both preach a gospel in which salvation is not that of faith out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, which God promises to save (Ps. 34:18) and looks to, (Is. 66:2), but instead emphasizes faith in the promise of eternal life bt faith in Christ, largely divorcing faith in Christ as Savior from Jesus is Lord, the latter of which the sinner is to confess in receiving the former. (Rm. 10:9,10)
This does not mean a sinner stops sinning to come to Christ, but as those who do come to Christ are choosing light over darkness, (Jn. 3:19-21) so those who come to Christ to be saved from their sins are those which have a basic change of heart, from darkness the light, which shall be manifest in works which correspond to repentance, “things which accompany salvation,” (Heb. 6:9) according to the light they have.
The third camp are churches which largely preached this, which range from fundamentalist type churches to holiness Pentecostals, which recognize that repentance is implicit in leading on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Protesting against the current spiritual declension into easy believism, the popular fundamentalist preacher John MacArthur states,
The gospel in vogue today holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them that they can have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God. Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity. It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the flesh and spurn the way of holiness. By separating faith from faithfulness, it teaches that intellectual assent is as valid as a wholehearted obedience to the truth.
Thus the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners. It is not the same message Jesus proclaimed.
One must be careful here, as it is possible to go to the other extreme of making conversion to Christ something that only persons who have sufficient character can be saved by, requiring them to be able to turn from all sins before they are saved, or not taking into account that growth in grace is related to the different degrees of grace of person has realized, and to whomsoever much is given much is required. (Lk. 16:48)
One must be careful here, as it is possible to go to the other extreme of making conversion to Christ something that only persons who have sufficient character can be saved by, requiring them to be able to turn from all sins before they are saved, or not taking into account that growth in grace is related to the different degrees of grace of person has realized, and to whomsoever much is given much is required. (Lk. 16:48)
The gospel preaching in the book of Acts called souls to repentance, but it was a basic repentance of faith, recognizing Jesus is Lord and trusting in Him for salvation, out of which transformed lives result.
But i the gospel of least resistance (and which is the least difficult to preach), does not work to convict men of sin, righteousness and judgment - and which [conviction] brings them to appreciate mercy - that marks the latter days we are in.
*Calvin, in his Institutes,,
states: "With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to
consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts
5:31)" (p. 592); and, "surely no one can embrace the grace
of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of past life
into the right way, applying his whole effort to the practice of
repentance" (Book III, p. 593). "Repentance has its
foundation in the gospel, which faith embraces" ( Book III,
Chapter 3, p. 593)
“To repent of sin and to
believe in Christ as a Savior from sin are really two aspects of one
and the same spiritual transaction...Some recognition of Christ and
some measure of appropriating faith must thus be involved in all true
repentance On the other hand such recognizing and appropriating faith
seems to require as its condition some deep consciousness of sin and
guilt and impending doom such as will impel the convicted soul to
look away unto Jesus for the deliverance it needs.
The practical fact is no one
repents worthily except in the sight and vision of as a possible
Savior from sin nor does any one truly attain sight and vision of
Christ without finding his wicked nature subdued within him and his
eyes filled with penitential tears. Whether therefore we place faith
first and repentance subsequent as the Symbols do or reverse the
order of the two elements should never forget that both are in
reality parts of the gracious experience logically set in a certain
procession chronologically and spiritually one and inseparable. So we
ever interpret the tender injunction so often repeated in the
Testament Repent and Believe.
The biblical conception of
acceptable repentance is well in the language 87 of the [Westminster]
Shorter Catechism a saving whereby a sinner out of a true sense of
his sin and of the mercy of God in Christ doth with grief and hatred
of sin turn from it unto God with full purpose of and endeavor new
obedience. The Larger Catechism 76 expands the in terms but adds
nothing except that this saving grace is to be wrought in the heart
of a sinner by the Spirit and Word God. The [Westminster] Confession
emphasizes the sense of the filthiness odiousness of sin as contrary
to the holy nature and righteous of God and defines the scope of
repentance in the declaration the penitent soul is henceforth
resolved to walk with God in the ways of his commandments. Other
descriptive phrases in the Minutes 279 and elsewhere Such an
experience is course to be radically differentiated from all
experiences might seem to be in any way related to it from natural
arising from some perception of the loss or other harmful consequence
providential or retributive that may be following indulgence in
transgression from moral remorse the sting outraged conscience in
view not so much of evil results from a sinful course but rather of
the intrinsic wrong the of wickedness in the sight of the personal
reason and judgment that must rise up occasionally in every soul not
seared and deadened by personal sin also from what may be termed
penitence
Calvin has comprehensively
defined acceptable repentance as a true conversion of our life to God
proceeding from a sincere and serious fear of God and consisting in
the mortification of our flesh and of the old man and in the
vivification of the Spirit.
The Augsburg Confession Art
XII says Repentance consisteth properly of two parts one is
contrition or terrors stricken into the conscience through the
acknowledgment or recognition of sin the other is faith which is
conceived by the Gospel and doth believe that for the sake of Christ
sins be forgiven and comforteth the conscience and freeth it from
terrors.
The Catechism of Heidelberg
defines repentance as twofold the dying of the old man and the
quickening of the new heartfelt sorrow for sin on the one side
causing us to hate it and turn from it always more and more heartfelt
joy in God on the other side causing us to take delight in living
according to the will of God in all good works.
The Second Helvetic Conf
teaches that repentance is a change of heart produced in a sinner by
the word of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit and includes a knowledge
of native and actual depravity a godly sorrow and hatred of sin and a
determination to live hereafter in virtue and holiness.
Repentance say the Irish
Articles 40 is a gift of God whereby godly sorrow is wrought in the
heart of the faithful for offending God their merciful Father through
their former transgressions together with a constant resolution for
the time to come to cleave unto God and to lead a new life One of the
Confessions embodies the whole in the simple declaration that true
repentance is turning to God and all good and turning away from the
devil and all evil Nearly all of the Protestant creeds contain
similar definitions though with some confusion in many cases between
repentance and faith on one hand and repentance and conversion as a
consequence of faith on the other.” — THE WESTMINSTER
SYMBOLS, pp. 482-83 by Edward D Morris D D LL D Emeritus
Professor of Systematic Theology In Lane Theological Seminary, 1900
Thomas Watson, an old Puritan,
said in The
Doctrine of Repentance, "Two great graces essential to a
saint in this life are faith and repentance. These are the two wings
by which he flies to heaven." “Christians, do you have a
sad resentment of other things and not of sin? Worldly tears fall to
the earth, but godly tears are kept in a bottle (Ps. 56.8). Judge not
holy weeping superfluous. Tertullian thought he was born for no other
end but to repent.” “It is a bad sign when a man on his
deathbed bequeaths his soul to God and his illgotten goods
to his friends. I can hardly think God will receive his soul.
Augustine said, 'Without restitution, no remission'. And it was a
speech of old Latimer, If ye restore not goods unjustly gotten, ye
shall cough in hell.”
When God begins to draw me to
Himself, the problem of my will comes in immediately. Will I react
positively to the truth that God has revealed? Will I come to Him? To
discuss or deliberate over spiritual matters when God calls is
inappropriate and disrespectful to Him. When God speaks, never
discuss it with anyone as if to decide what your response may be (see
Galatians 1:15-16). Belief is not the result of an intellectual act,
but the result of an act of my will whereby I deliberately commit
myself. But will I commit, placing myself completely and absolutely
on God, and be willing to act solely on what He says? If I will, I
will find that I am grounded on reality as certain as God’s
throne.
In preaching the gospel,
always focus on the matter of the will. Belief must come from the
will to believe. There must be a surrender of the will, not a
surrender to a persuasive or powerful argument. I must deliberately
step out, placing my faith in God and in His truth. And I must place
no confidence in my own works, but only in God. Trusting in my own
mental understanding becomes a hindrance to complete trust in God. I
must be willing to ignore and leave my feelings behind. I must will
to believe. But this can never be accomplished without my forceful,
determined effort to separate myself from my old ways of looking at
things. I must surrender myself completely to God. — My Utmost
for His Highest (The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers;1992, “The
Drawing of the Father”)
Eph. 2:10 A regenerated sinner
becomes a living soul; he lives a life of holiness, being born of
God: he lives, being delivered from the guilt of sin, by pardoning
and justifying grace. All is the free gift of God, and the effect of
being quickened by his power. It was his purpose, to which he
prepared us, by blessing us with the knowledge of his will, and his
Holy Spirit producing such a change in us, that we should glorify God
by our good conversation, and perseverance in holiness. None can from
Scripture abuse this doctrine, or accuse it of any tendency to evil.
All who do so, are without excuse. — Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible
James 2:14 In order to a
proper interpretation of this passage, it should be observed that the
stand-point from which the apostle views this subject is not before a
man is converted, inquiring in what way he may be justified before
God, or on what ground his sins may be forgiven; but it is after a
man is converted, showing that that faith can have no value which is
not followed by good works; that is, that it is not real faith, and
that good works are necessary if a man would have evidence that he is
justified. Thus understood, all that James says is in entire
accordance with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. —
Albert Barnes (1798-1870), Notes on the Bible
Jas 2:14 From Jam_1:22, the
apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to
those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had
taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of
the law." This some began already to wrest to their own
destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (Jam_2:21,
Jam_2:23, Jam_2:25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples,
which St. Paul had used, Rom_4:3, Heb_11:17, Heb_11:31, refutes not
the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There
is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both
delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to
do with different kinds of men. — John Wesley
James
2:14-26 6. We are taught that a justifying faith cannot be without
works, from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Those who would have
Abraham's blessings must be careful to copy after his faith: to boast
of being Abraham's seed will not avail any, if they do not believe as
he did... [2.] Those works which evidence true faith must to works of
self-denial, and such as God himself commands (as Abraham's offering
up his son, his only son, was), and not such works as are pleasing to
flesh and blood and may serve our interest, or are the mere fruits of
our own imagination and devising. — Matthew Henry (1662 –
1714), Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jas
2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel
for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true
faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness,
atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits,
and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere
assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any
facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may
gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some
cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to
gain the whole world, and to lose their souls?...True believing is
not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart.
— Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jas
2:17 If it hath not works, is dead - The faith that does not produce
works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which
animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. —
Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832), Commentary on the Bible
Jas 2:14-18 Even so faith.
Faith that has no power to bring one to obedience and to sway the
life is as worthless as good wishes which end in words. — The
People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it
hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass,
a body without a soul, Jam_2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead
works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the
lively hope and faith of regenerated persons: — Dr. John Gill
(1690-1771), Exposition of the Entire Bible
“If the works which
living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith
itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no
existence; that is, that what one boasts of as faith, is dead.”
“Faith” is said to be “dead in itself,”
because when it has works it is alive, and it is discerned to be so,
not in respect to its works, but in respect to itself. —
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments
Jas 2:17 So likewise that
faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more
profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is
to him. — John Wesley
Even so faith; that which
they boasted of, and called faith. Is dead; void of that life, in
which the very essence of faith consists, and which always discovers
itself in vital actings and good fruits, where it is not hindered by
some forcible impediment; in allusion to a corpse, which plainly
appears to have no vital principle in it, all vital operations being
ceased. It resembles a man’s body, and is called so, but in
reality is not so, but a dead carcass. — Matthew Poole (1624
-1679)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)