Eric, if you look again, you’ll see that I’ve referred you to the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture. Is it your position that Jesus is one of the Protestant Reformers?
No, Jesus is not a Reformer. Moreover, you did not simply refer me “to the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture” but also to
your personal interpretation of it which, in turn, was derived from certain members of the Protestant Reformation.
Here is what the section from John 6 actually states:
[38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
[39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
[41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
[42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?”
[43] Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.
[44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
I stated before that your OSAS doctrine hinges upon 1) your opinion as to what it means to believe in Christ, and 2) that once someone believes in Christ his decision is somehow frozen in time and he is unable to cease believing in Christ. Nowhere in this text from John do we see your concept of what it means to believe in Christ, nor is there any timetable established. Such things are not presented in this section of John, but rather arise from an interpretation of John.
What you are basing your OSAS doctrine on, therefore, are the scriptural interpretations of a select group of Reformers, and not what John actually wrote.
On a different note, based on the manner in which you have made responses in this thread (such as saying that relying on history and tradition is a fallacy), I presume that you are an adherent of Sola Scriptura (i.e., doctrine has to be clearly presented in the Bible in order to be considered valid). Because I am a Catholic, I don’t accept Sola Scriptura. But when I debate with those who do, I naturally expect them to play by “the Sola Scriptura rules”, so to speak. For example, if they reject certain Catholic teachings because they are drawn from Tradition rather than Scripture, but these same people are willing to accept certain other non-biblical doctrines as valid, then this demonstrates hypocrisy and a double-standard. You’ll see why I’m bringing this up in a moment.
It demonstrates no such thing Eric. The apostles didn’t interpret what they wrote, they simply wrote it.
1) Where in the Bible does it say “the apostles didn’t interpret what they wrote”? (i.e., I expect adherents of Sola Scriptura to play by its rules).
2) The Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles as well as New Testament epistles contain interpretations of Scripture, so your statement is demonstrably false.
3) For 2000 years, the Catholic Church as well as all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Orthodox Churches have taught that the Apostles passed on their interpretations of God’s revelation in Sacred Tradition as well as Scripture. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that certain Reformers (but not all of them) rejected this.
Any interpretation that comes after their writing of Scripture is, by definition, not apostolic because the interpretation is made by someone other than an apostle.
I want you to consider the ramifications of all that you have stated so far. Breaking down your argument, you are (in essence) saying:
It is wrong to criticize the OSAS doctrine for not being apostolic because only the writings of the apostles themselves are rightly considered apostolic. Therefore, all doctrines derived from an interpretation of their writings are not, by definition, apostolic.
In saying this, you are admitting that the OSAS doctrine is not plainly found in Scripture, but is instead an interpretation of Scripture. This, of course, is what I’ve been saying all along.
And yet, in the Scripture, in the writings of the apostles, it is clearly asserted.
And how quickly you change gears! So now you’re back to saying that it is plainly found in Scripture. If it is plainly found in Scripture then it would, by definition, be apostolic. And yet you just said, “Any interpretation that comes after their writing of Scripture is, by definition, not apostolic because the interpretation is made by someone other than an apostle”.
So you’ve really presented your position in a very confusing way. Is OSAS apostolic or not?
If it is apostolic then it has to have been clearly taught in Scripture and consequently believed by each generation of Christians (and yet there is no record of any Christian teaching it until the Reformation).
If it is not apostolic then, according to your own definition of the terminology, it is likewise
not clearly presented in Scripture. Therefore, as an adherent of Sola Scriptura, you are obligated to reject the OSAS doctrine.
(Continued in my next post)
You have interpreted Jesus’ words. If you read words and take them to mean something, you have, by definition, interpreted them. Even if the statement is simply “2+2=4”, your decision to conclude that it is a mathematical statement (as opposed to a secret code, words in a made up language, etc.) is an interpretation. Every statement you read, every conclusion you come to based on another’s words is, by definition, an interpretation. So yes, you have interpreted Jesus’ words, and as we have painstakingly explained in detail several times, with in depth supporting arguments and numerous clarifications with scriptural support, your interpretation is wrong.