That’s an excellent question, Nick – how do we know error when we see it? If there is no infallible means of interpreting Scripture, as you believe, then how can any Protestant correct another Protestant on interpretation of Scripture when he himself isn’t infallible? Wouldn’t that be arrogance or over-confidence to assume another Christian must be wrong if their interpretation is different from yours? Are some Christians less fallible than others?
Nick, why this false dichotomy between Rome and Jesus? We listen to “Rome” BECAUSE we love and are obedient to the Master, Jesus Christ. So please, stop this line of accusation. Luke 10:16 says “he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me.” When “Rome” speaks, it is Jesus speaking through His mouthpiece, the keyholder, Peter and His successors.
The thing is Nick that it is ridiculous for Protestants to reject the Church because of some falsely perceived dichotomy between the Bible and the Catholic traditions. Every Bible in the world, no matter the translation or who corrupted it, even Joseph Smith, was born from those Catholic traditions that Protestants despise. Without those traditions, there would be nothing to be written down. But because the Church safeguarded the way, the truth and the life for the first 382 years, and in 382AD closed that Gospel so that it could not be added to erroneously, you have a Gospel to read. And that is the only reason you have a Bible today. Why despise Catholic traditions when you are holding the fruit of it in your hands?
Yes, he is distinguishing between covenants – because in the early church, since most of the original converts were Jews, there was a tendency among some, called “Judaizers” to require circumcision and other old covenant observances, in addition to faith in Christ, for salvation. If you read the context where Paul talks about “works of the law” --this is what he’s always referring to, and it’s especially clear in Galatians that he’s referring to Judaizers. Water baptism isn’t law, it’s sacrament. It’s not something *we *do but is done to us and we don’t have to earn it in any way. It’s the free gift of God’s grace. In Paul’s account of his conversion in Acts 22:16 he recalls what Ananias said to him, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, *be baptized *and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” Baptism is clearly the means that God uses to wash away sin and regenerate the soul, otherwise why mention it at all? Ananias should have just said, “You believe in Jesus now, your sins are washed away. Now go get baptized as a symbol of what’s already happened.” And in 1 Peter 3:21 it says very plainly, “and this water [that Noah passed through in the ark, read preceding verse] symbolizes *baptism, that now saves you also. . .*it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism is the *application *of the redemption won for us through Christ’s life, death and Resurrection. It isn’t something tacked on as an additional requirement.
Tradition + the Bible + the Magisterium = “the way”
It’s not true that Paul always refers to the the ceremonial law when he is speaking of the law.
You have just proven my point here!
I don’t believe that God gives only part of what saves a person. God’s grace of regeneration causes the elect person to hunger for the truth, and God provides the Truth to that regenerated person who, because of regeneration, is completely receptive to it.
Jesus said,“By their fruit you will know them.”
If I were that islander, I might notice that there are three separate accounts of the confession of Peter, that Jesus is Christ, the Messiah:
Do all RC’s believe that it is wrong to use birth control? To divorce? To have sex before marriage? Are all those people in the RCC who disagree with Rome on these issues, heretics and schismatics?
I have already pointed out that a person who grew up on a romote island who had never had any kind of exposure to Christianity would not become “Catholic” in his beliefs by reading a bible should one happen to become available.
If you are led by God, you will recognize error by its conflict with the bible. It is unreasonable to look for infallible teachings from any source that cannot provide it.
And you know this how
Please, you can not make assumptions like this!!!I trust the Word of God which led me to believe in the authority of Rome, therefore I believe both
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Much has been made (in this thread) about “doctrinal development” and John Henry Cardinal Newman. Unfortunately for the islander, who only has a bible and no tradition or “doctrinal development” by the “infallible teaching authority” there are several teachings that the islander would completely lack. To name a few:And you know this how
Whenever Paul speaks of the “works of the law” he is *always *referring to OT ceremonial law. In Romans 4:1-12 Paul is using Abraham as an example of someone justified apart from the cermonial law --he points out that Abraham was justified *before *he was circumicised (ceremonial law). Later on, in Romans 7, he speaks of “the law” (not “works of the law”) referring to the moral law, the commandments in verses 7-12. If the moral law (the commandments) are one and the same as the ceremonial law, then how do you explain what Jesus said to the rich young man when asked “What good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matthew 19:17). Jesus replies, “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” And in John 15:9-10, “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. *If *you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.”
Yes actually. For instance, John Kerry was behaving in a heretical fashion.
The bible you read is a “doctrinal development”. You want to throw it out with the rest of your “doctrinal developments”?
Don’t the islanders play hockey?
I’m not quite sure which bible you read from, Nick, but just because you can’t find them there, doesn’t mean the islander can’t. This is quite an assumption you’re making to buiild a case around. Kinda sounds like the evolutionists. Create a theory with no facts behind it, then build a whole system on it.