Fallacies of sola scriptura

[paul_c]

Quote:
This is untrue. Being baptized is accepting God’s graces that became available because of Jesus’ death. It in no way minimizes or mitigates Christ’s merits.

The Babies’ parents act as proxies for their children, promising to bring them up in the faith. The babies will not be confirmed until they are old enough to make their own decision of acceptance.

Quote:
I think you are confused here. First of all, the Chruch has never condemned a single individual. It is and has always been God’s job to judge.The church says that if you know you need to be baptized to go to heaven and you deliberately refuse, you are separating yourself from God. Now, if a person doesn’t know about baptism, they are not separating themselves from God by that action (although they could separate themselves by other sins agains the natural law that is in everyone’s heart.

People excommunicate themselves. It means they have voluntarily separated themselves from the church. People are given the chance to renounce the views that separate them prior to excommunication unless they do something they know separates them, like for instance, aborting a child. Excommunication is not diviine judgement. It signifies that the person in question is no longer a member of the church and can not participate in the sacraments.

Quote:
You are quick to jump to that erroneous conclusion. The Pope’s teachings are infallible, not individual catechists

As I am sure you recognize, the Catholic Church is the largest organization in the world, with over 1 Billion members. It has a heirarchical leadership structure, with the Pope at the top with 5500 bishops reporting to him and 400,000 priests reporting to them. There are probably 10Million catechists worldwide reporting to their pastors. The Pope and the college of bishops together are responsiblity for teaching the faith. If there is a question among the bishops, the Pope is responsible for providing the correct and infallible position. The bishops authorize the pastors in their diocese to teach the faith to the people and they generally have a diocese catechismal office to adminster this. The pastors in term typically have a director of catechism within their parish to administer the program to the faithful and they will recruit and train catechists to do the actual teaching. If one of those catechists does a poor job of teaching the faith, it is the director’s job ot rectify the situation. If they don’t, it falls to the pastor, the head of the diocese catechism office and ultimately the bishop to make the corrections.

Why do you have such anger against the Catholic Church?

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;6694199]There absolutely is Merit inherent in sanctification and salvation. To deny this is to deny that man has free will. Think about it this way, if man has a choice about whether to follow God and be saved then his choice has merit. This is not to say that he can earn heaven on his own account, he can not. If Jesus hadn’t opened up the gates, then no one can enter heaven. But there is merit to followiing Jesus through those gates, unless you believe that man has not choice in the matter. Now could God choose to force you to go to heaven? Of course, he’s omnipotent. But we believe that in his infinite love, he wants us to come to him willingly. and if we do, that demonstrates merit.

I see what you are saying. Let me ponder it further. One question, paul, would you say that even this merit is due only because of grace? We Lutherans have such a strong position on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s work, that claiming merit for ourselves is virtually impossible. In fact, we view free will as one way - the rejection of Grace. And still, we recognize the importance of obedience in doing the commands of Christ.

in Catholic theology, the sacraments provide the grace that allows man to be saved.

Lutherans would agree. They are the means of grace, particularly sanctifying grace.

Jon, why do you feel a need to follow the Orthodox? You don’t follow them in anything else. By the way, its very telling that the Eastern Churches were not unified in separating from Rome. 22 of the Eastern churches Stayed with or returned to Rome during or after the Great Schism. The Orthodox are also basically national churches as well, unlike Catholicism. (The Russian orthodox, the Greek orthodox, etc.) This is highly indicative of the political nature of the split. Hopefully, we will reconcile soon.

For Lutherans, I would say that it isn’t following the Orthodox, per se, but rather agreeing to some extent with them in reading of the early councils, and how jurisdiction was determined.
For me, personally, the disagreement between Rome and Orthodoxy is a matter of increased complexity, because I am, afterall, a western Christian.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;6696261]OK, so here you are saying that one can be “justified” in the Lutheran understanding of the concept, and subsequently lose his justification which is equivalent to the Catholic concept of not being in a state of Grace which, of course, means that if you die in that state you dont go to Heaven. Seems pretty clear, but then in response to my summary here…

which completely contradicts your initial statement that one can lose their justification, and that justification is a requirement for going to Heaven. Im confused again.
You shouldn’t be confused. We agree that we can, by our free will choices, reject (lose) justification. We also agree that we can at some point come back to faith, “if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Is justification a requirement for going to Heaven? Y or N, please!
Can justification be lost? Y or N, please!
If both of those questions were answered in the affirmative, then this statement remains true:

This entry into fellowship with God (ie justification), however,  does not guarantee that we will actually go to Heaven." and your "Yes, it does." needs to be changed to "No, it does not".  Correct?

It only guarantees it if we do not reject it. You, as a Catholic, would say only if we stay in a state of grace.
Simple example: My dad bought me a ticket to a Phillies game. So long as I do not lose it (or give it back to him) it will gain me entrance into the game.
Let’s say I get to the gate, and I can’t find the ticket. I retrace my steps, look and look. Maybe I stop looking for a while and just listen to the radio. Well into the game, Dad calls and says how is the game? He encourages me to continue seeking the ticket. I find it in the - you pick an inning - and they let me in.

But Jon, you have already stated that sanctification is a requirement of going to Heaven and that sanctification requires cooperation on our part. Its a logically consistent statement regarding salvation from the theology you have presented. How can you possibly “reject it”?!

Sanctification is evidence that justification - a live, salvific faith exists. Without sanctification, there is no justification. But it is the justification that saves.

And just for the record, it contains no mention of “merit”; you introduced that on your own! There is no salvation without justification, and there is no salvation devoid of sanctification.

There is no salvation without justification. And there is no* justification* without sanctification.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

You got it

Ah. I see.

It seems that this is a church created in avflf’s own image, rather than God’s?

 

[paul_c]

I see what you are saying. Let me ponder it further. One question, paul, would you say that even this merit is due only because of grace? We Lutherans have such a strong position on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s work, that claiming merit for ourselves is virtually impossible. In fact, we view free will as one way - the rejection of Grace. And still, we recognize the importance of obedience in doing the commands of Christ.

Jon

I think that’s a false dichotomy. If you can reject grace, than by not rejecting Grace, you are accepting it. That has merit.

You see, its a very Protestant view to say that God is responsible for everything and man is responsible for nothing. But this is a half truth. God is responsible for everything, but he delegates some of that responsibility to man. Man is the steward of Creation and man has responsibility for his own soul. Not because he earned that responsibility, but because it was freely given to him by God. You know in your own life that you have responsibility for yourself once you become an adult. This can not be denied.

Now responsibility does not preclude Grace and it does not preclude obedience. It is by God’s grace that we have responsiblity and it is by his grace that we have the strength and direction to carry out his will. And just becasue we are responsible doesn’t mean that we don’t have rules to follow and a goal to meet. If we follow the rules and meet the goal, there is merit and reward… If we don’t, there are consequences. Just like in a job

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuntym
A church of one?

You got it

Why are you so certain that out of all the people who have ever lived, you have it uniquely right? and why are you so confident that you can get to heaven on your own?

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;6696960]I think that’s a false dichotomy. If you can reject grace, than by not rejecting Grace, you are accepting it. That has merit.

Or receiving it. If it has merit, whose merit is it? Christ’s, because He has made even faith possible.

You see, its a very Protestant view to say that God is responsible for everything and man is responsible for nothing. But this is a half truth. God is responsible for everything, but he delegates some of that responsibility to man.

Now, I can generally agree with that. Again, sanctification is synergistic.

Man is the steward of Creation and man has responsibility for his own soul. Not because he earned that responsibility, but because it was freely given to him by God. You know in your own life that you have responsibility for yourself once you become an adult. This can not be denied.

And yet, I can claim no merit for it. Response to a gift freely given - obedience to the One to whom all merit belongs. That is my responsibility. Do you agree?

Now responsibility does not preclude Grace and it does not preclude obedience. It is by God’s grace that we have responsiblity and it is by his grace that we have the strength and direction to carry out his will. And just becasue we are responsible doesn’t mean that we don’t have rules to follow and a goal to meet. If we follow the rules and meet the goal, there is merit and reward… If we don’t, there are consequences. Just like in a job

Not unsure I don’t agree with this, too.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

---

Quote:
=paul c;6696960]I think that’s a false dichotomy. If you can reject grace, than by not rejecting Grace, you are accepting it. That has merit.

Both have merit. Christ has merit for making faith possible. You have merit if you are faithful. It doesn’t have to be either / or.

---

Quote:
You see, its a very Protestant view to say that God is responsible for everything and man is responsible for nothing. But this is a half truth. God is responsible for everything, but he delegates some of that responsibility to man.

But we are called to be holy. If we are not holy, we aren’t saved… Sanctification can not be separated from salvation.

---

Quote:
Man is the steward of Creation and man has responsibility for his own soul. Not because he earned that responsibility, but because it was freely given to him by God. You know in your own life that you have responsibility for yourself once you become an adult. This can not be denied.

Again. both you and Christ have merit. He has the most merit because he died for our sins. But if we carry out our infinitely smaller responsibilities, we still have merit. You see, if you have choice, there is merit for making the right choice. If you have no choices, then there is no free will. You can’t have free will without also having the potential for merit.

---

Quote:
Now responsibility does not preclude Grace and it does not preclude obedience. It is by God’s grace that we have responsiblity and it is by his grace that we have the strength and direction to carry out his will. And just becasue we are responsible doesn’t mean that we don’t have rules to follow and a goal to meet. If we follow the rules and meet the goal, there is merit and reward… If we don’t, there are consequences. Just like in a job

I can’t understand what you are saying here. Too many negatives in one sentence.

In any case, it really comes down to your view of man.

The Catholic view of man is positive. Man has choices, By grace, he can choose to follow Christ but he can also choose to separate himself from Christ. Life is the testing ground for these choices. During life, by your actions, you choose between life and death, heaven and hell. Every man has the opportunity and responsibility of deciding his ultimate destiny. God loves us tremendously so he gives us many tools to help us make the right choices. Life itself, reason, free will, conscience, grace and through the sacraments, the infinite ability to be forgiven and reconciled… This is also a very positive view of God’s love and mercy…

I find the Protestant view of man and God to be much more negative. Many Protestants believe man has no free will at all, being predistined to heaven or hell regardless of his faith or actions. This makes man no more than an automaton and God extremely unjust, who would create some men for no other purpose than to damn them to eternal suffering through no fault of their own.

Where do you put yourself in this discussion. Do men have free will or not? Do all men have the opportunity for salvation or are some damned for eternity before they were born?

Now, I will add one more Catholic Concept for clarification. God is all knowing so he knows who will choose to obey and who will separate himself from God before it happens so his plans are not dependent on man. Nevertheless, man still has to carry out the actions that he can predict perfectly.

 

[Murphs10]

Or receiving it. If it has merit, whose merit is it? Christ’s, because He has made even faith possible.

Hey Jon!

It isn’t so much about the ownership of merit, but our cooperation and obedience is meritorious IF united with Christ. Christ makes it meritourious. The same can be said for suffering. We are called to suffer with Christ and as Paul says:

Col 1
24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

Romans 8
17: and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

They are Paul’s sufferings, but united with Christ’s, they are meritourious and beneficial to the Body of Christ/Chruch.
Does Jesus really lack in any way? Of course not! Just like He has no need to merit anything for himself. He allows us to participate in many ways.

 

[Philthy]

I see what you are saying. Let me ponder it further. One question, paul, would you say that even this merit is due only because of grace? We Lutherans have such a strong position on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s work, that claiming merit for ourselves is virtually impossible. In fact, we view free will as one way - the rejection of Grace. And still, we recognize the importance of obedience in doing the commands of Christ.
Jon

Hi Jon -

This is always an interesting topic - the relationship between free will, grace and merit. Here are some thoughts I shared almost a year ago on this very topic…
Originally Posted by Philthy
Grace is grace regardless of the conditions unilaterally placed upon it’s dispensation by God.* In fact, establishing any conditions at all which provide access to His grace is, in itself, a grace that we don’t deserve. *The term “merits grace” simply refers to someone who has met those conditions.
For example:
Salvation is by grace through faith. The fact that faith is a condition of salvation does not obviate that it remains grace, does it? Having faith does not obligate the dispensation of grace in an absolute sense - Gods justice does since he has( by an act of grace) sovereignly declared that salvation is by grace through faith. Again, the rub is that the fact that He established any condition at all by which we have access to His grace (of which we are totally undeserving) - is gracious!

In addition, here is some more commentary and an anology I came up with of the relationship between faith and works from a Catholic perspective.

All acts of faith and love (repentance included) are impossible without God’s grace and in that sense it is all CONTIGENT upon God. That is orthodox Catholic theology.
There is a difference, however, between acknowledging that we are hopeless without God and claiming that it is “all God”. If it were all God in the absolute sense, there would be no need for the conversation we are having - God would do it all. There would be no need for baptism, faith, repentance, forgiveness, perseverance, etc. There would be no need for a bible or a Church - God would just do it all. That is not how God has chosen to accomplish salvation - He does not “force” himself upon us. Like every true love relationship, both parties are willing participants…or not. God will always be faithful, but we are still free to reject all that God offers us by way of grace. Simply look at how some of the Pharisees reacted to Christ. Think about it: we must cooperate with Gods grace in order for it to have its desired effect. We cant remain attached to other gods (money, power, ego, etc) and simultaneously derive the benefit of grace which has as its end remaking us -body and soul - into the image of Christ. So while we are completely dependent upon God to become more Christ-like, we simultaneously have the ability to reject that offer. Because of this reality, we must wake up and realize that we have a part to play in this as well. Our part is small, but we must make the small act of unwrapping the present that God has given us. If we allow ourselves to be overtaken by the lures of the world we run the risk of falling away from intimacy with God and failing to persevere to the end.

Here’s an analogy on grace and our need to cooperate with it for your consideration:

You have a pot, a watering can, a water supply and some dirt and you want to grow a flower.

You are hopeless without a seed. Nothing you do works. Your works do nothing!

God comes along and freely gives us a seed which begins to grow.Thank you God!

He also tells us - I’ll provide the Son, but you need to water the plant or it will die!
You don’t water the plant and it dies after a while.

Explanation:
The pot, can, water and dirt - everything we are - is us in our sinful state.
The flower is a living relationship with God:eternal life
The desire for a flower is the desire for eternal life
The attempt to grow the flower without a seed is works without faith
The seed is God’s gift of Grace and without it there will be no “flower”
Jesus is the Sun - the metaphor was to good to pass up - also necessary
The statement by God is His Word - it tells us what we need to do.
Failing to water the plant is “faith without works”
Watering the plant is the “works”(faith, repentace, forgiving others) part of eternal life - ignore them, and the plant dies. It may grow for a while, but if you ignore them it will die.
__________________

 

[JonNC]

Not unsure I don’t agree with this, too.

Well, this was well stated. :whacky:

What I meant was I think I can agree with this to a point.

Jon

 

[QuickCat]

Scripture also demonstrates that He ministered to plenty of Gentiles also.

He further sent His Apostles to “all nations”.

Why did they then agree with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel - Gal. 2:9

Can you prove that Paul’s letters are written to you? What a silly question!

Sure, Paul writes to the “saints” in these various areas. The only “saint” known to the Bible is the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ *. Since I am saved and know it, I am one of the “saints” that Paul addresses.

The Body is comprised of those who are in His Kingdom, and subject to His reign. His kingdom is not of this world. the prophets did speak of the reign of the messiah.

Of course, His Kingdom is not of the world! It is from heaven, but it will be on earth. Why do you chant “Thy kingdom come…” If it is the church?

Well, finally we are in agreement about something! On the contrary, scripture does not have the power to “put” anyone into a right relationship with God. However, in baptism, we are united to Him as our Head, and made members of his One Body, the church, and of one another.

The ONLY baptism that unites believers is that baptism mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:13.

I am sure curious about this “induement”. Is this a term used by your pastor?

The Apostles never separated the baptism in the HS from the water to which Jesus joined it.*

Strong’s Greek Dictionary
1746. ενδυοω enduo
Search for G1746 in KJVSL
ενδυοω enduo en-doo’-o
from 1722 and 1416 (in the sense of sinking into a garment); to invest with clothing (literally or figuratively):–array, clothe (with), endue, have (put) on.

See Greek 1722
See Greek 1416

Enduement is a perfectly good Biblical word - Luke 24:49. I am sure that my pastor/teacher has used it when citing the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If you will connect Mt. 3:11 with Acts 1:8 and 11:16 and then contrast those verses with 1 Cor. 12:13 it may open your eyes to the fact that in one case the Lord Jesus Christ is the baptizer and in the other case the Holy Spirit is the baptizer. Two entirely different things and purposes.

 

[PRmerger]

No “religion” is right! Biblical Christianity is not a “religion” it is a relationship.

That’s a nonsensical statement.

Religion comes from the Latin word, religiare, which means…relationship.

Essentially what you’re saying is “Biblical Christianity is not a ‘relationship’; it is a relationship”. Nonsensical.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)