I don't even understand Sola Scriptura

[onenow1]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

Hi kbwall sure a lot of info being blown around, maybe a little logic is in order.

GOD, in His Infinite Wisdom, would never have given us one inerrant book,
without first giving us ONE authorized and infallible interpreter for it.
However, GOD did first give us one authorized infallible interpreter for it. He gave us His Church,he even says so.HERE:Matt. 16:18, And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

One more thing the pretext,espoused by other eccliasial communities that the CC is somehow not the Church is getting old and tireing.

God Bless

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. ** But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place.** If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

It was NOT “Catholics who made the Bible in the first place” It was God.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hello Kball,

I am a convert to Catholicism. I was raised as a Protestant.

The argument of ‘sola scriptura’ is non-Biblical. Most Protestants will use every verse they can find that states ‘word’ of God to support scriptural authority, even if it appears to be speaking of the spoken ‘word’. Scripture does tell us that scriptures are God breathed/inspired and ‘profitable’ to teach.

It also says “scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2Tim.3:15

Profitable is short of all that is needed.

What else is needed?

Scriptures also tell us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth,

Pillars, ground, foundations are all meant to hold something up. In this case the truth and what would that be? Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Isn’t the word of God scripture or the bible?

where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. Christ established a Church. He never wrote anything, or ordered anything scribed. He commanded the Apostles to go out and ‘preach’ the Gospel.

And later those same things were written down in the bible.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I need a question answered and I do apologize if I am getting a little off the subject here, but this is really bothering me.

I have several Protestant friends (who love the Lord with their whole hearts) tell me that when they receive “communion”, it is a symbol of the body of Christ and that the “juice” is also a symbol. Others say “it is what you believe it is”. They believe the Bible as The Word, but when I bring up the fact that Jesus said, this IS my body and this IS my blood, He is not talking about symbols. They can not answer or they disagree among themselves about this.

He also said
1Cor.11
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Does that mean that the cup that He held is the new testament? Probably not.

 

[benidict]

It was NOT “Catholics who made the Bible in the first place” It was God.

yes. the bible is Gods Word. but the Holy Spirit Guided the council of nicea as to which books would make up the cannon. so what he probably meant to say was that it is the Catholics, guided by the Holy Spirit who formulated the Cannon.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, wrote the NT and formed the Bible.
The canon was established at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), and was again affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1445), Trent (1545-63), and Vatican I.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

And later those same things were written down in the bible.

How do you know?

 

[Nicea325]

It was NOT “Catholics who made the Bible in the first place” It was God.

Yes Richard and what you refuse to accept as a fact of life and history is HOW God gave us the Bible. Through the Catholic Church and the decisions of the bishops. No amount of denials will make it go away Richard.I suggest you read history a bit.

 

[Nicea325]

It also says “scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2Tim.3:15

What else is needed?

What else is needed? Jesus Christ Church. Read the Bible again Richard. Jesus founded His Church,not a nicely compiled book. Really? Tell me how the first Jews who had no Bible managed salvation with no written Bible? Sorry Richard,but your exegesis is flawed. Where does Jesus teach explicitly:

Scripture alone is enough for salvation.

Show me where Jesus says **scriptures-alone **is sufficient?

St.Paul NO WHERE teaches scripture alone is enough for salvation,that is a Protestant invention and accepted as a truth.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Deformation? Come on, Jim. We’ve had a spirited but respectful discussion.

My intent is not disrespectful, Jon. But, since Luther didn’t reform the Catholic Church, what shall I call his actions? He left a still-bleeding wound in the Church. The Church, which needed reforming, reformed herself. “Reformation” is a Protestant term, as is Luther’s title, “The Great Reformer.” Both are misnomers.

Seems to me he had help from the Vatican.

Excommunication is intended to make the person aware of the seriousness of their actions, prompt the person to reconsider their actions, to repent, and to return to the Church. Luther broke from the Church, started his own ecclesial body with his own doctrines, and started – whether he intended to or not – an avalanche of denominations that continues to this day at a rate of about five a week, all based on Sola Scriptura.

Actually, Zwingli came before Calvin. and neither of them split from Luther, but from Rome.

Sorry I got them out of order. No, they didn’t split from Luther. But they – and all subsequent denominations – were/are based on the concept of Scripture Alone, one of the pillars of Protestantism announced by Luther. I think most are based also on Luther’s Faith Alone.

Sola scriptura and personal interpretation are two different things. in fact, properly practiced, sola scriptura protects against private interpretation because it holds all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture.

Scripture, like all writing, has to be interpreted. It is intended to be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. The NT can’t be correctly understood except in the context in which it was written – in the heart of the believing, teaching Church that wrote it.

Luther intended that HIS interpretation of Scripture be followed and was quite upset when others taught their own ideas. Sola Scriptura is like Pandora’s box. It may not have been Luther’s intention, but every Protestant is empowered to become his own interpreter and final authority on Scripture.

The polity of Lutheranism aside, confessional Lutherans do accept and hold to the confessions. Those who don’t one could call “cafeteria Lutherans”, not unlike Cafeteria Catholics.

Is there an authority in Lutheranism?

I’m not aware that “whore of Babylon” is in the confessions.
That said, papacy as antichrist is pretty harsh. It is also harsh when the Catholic Church claims there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches the truth. Just as there is salvation only through Christ, there is no salvation outside His Church, which is His Body. Have you read the meaning of the doctrine in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Every human being who is saved is saved through Christ and His Church, whether they know it in this life or not.

So, here’s my position. These condemnations of the papacy were 500 years ago, and they are clearly dated, directed at the papacy at the time. Just as the Catholic Church has, in its catechism, developed its view of noncatholic Christians, so it seems obvious that this current pope, and the wonderful John Paul II, and their recent predecessors are not antichrist, but great leaders of the Christian faith. And to take this position does not violate the Confessions.

As a former Southern Baptist, I assure you that “Antichrist” and “whore of Babylon” are prevalent beliefs in many Protestant circles, inherited from Luther.

Luther wrote his before Trent, also.

You see no difference in Luther issuing a Bible that removes these writings from the canon and an opinion expressed by others.

“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”
Luther is speaking of the views of others here.

and

*“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, **I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. ***However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

Jim, in how many additions did his initial preface of 1522 appear? To my knowledge, it was only in 1522. His later use of the Epistle of James, and his stated acceptance of it as canon indicates that, no matter how hostile you think he may have been, clearly he changed his view as time went on.

That’s an opinion, Jon, an assumption. I’ll take Luther’s word(s) for it. He did not restore Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to their rightful place in Scripture within his lifetime, nor did he ever express regret about his actions to remove them from the canon, to my knowledge. His followers replaced them, I believe in the 17th century. The removal of the deuterocanon has endured.

You regard Luther as a hero. I regard Luther as a villian. But you are free to express your opinion, and I am free to express mine. I find nothing I’ve ever read about Luther redeeming. I regard him as a tortured man, afflicted with mental illness, probably as a result of his maltreatment as a child by both his parents – a man who could not find peace, scrupulous about his sins – who descrated the Bible and inflicted wounds upon the Body of Christ which are still unhealed to this day. I pray for his soul.

I suffered as a Protestant and an atheist for too long, so I find my own healing difficult. Please pray for me.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[benidict]

i know exactly what you mean Jim Dandy. recovering fundamentalist dittos peace to you, and prayers. Just continually thank God for what we have received, and breath a huge sigh of relief that you found the Truth. Peace

 

[benidict]

What else is needed? Jesus Christ Church. Read the Bible again Richard. Jesus founded His Church,not a nicely compiled book. Really? Tell me how the first Jews who had no Bible managed salvation with no written Bible? Sorry Richard,but your exegesis is flawed. Where does Jesus teach explicitly:

Scripture alone is enough for salvation.

Show me where Jesus says **scriptures-alone **is sufficient?

St.Paul NO WHERE teaches scripture alone is enough for salvation,that is a Protestant invention and accepted as a truth.

whats the saying? if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth…also did not Christ state "search the scriptures. for in them you THINK you have eternal life…oooh! seems like Christ himself did not agree with scripture alone. hmm. should i listen to E.G. White, or Christ? easy choice. Peace

 

[benidict]

How do you know?

he doesnt and he refuses to see that some of the Apostles oral teachings were put into the Didache. and not included in the cannon.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

How do you know?

Are you saying they weren’t?

 

[cooterhein]

Maybe you haven’t heard? but bishops, priests and deacons are in the new testament,

That’s unlikely. You should know by now that there is some merit to the stereotypes of Catholics who don’t know their way around the Bible and the Protestants that do.

The first category of “faithful people”** is episcopoi, bishops**.

“Episkopoi” referred to elders or overseers, and while it later became more closely linked to the office of “bishop,” this connection did not yet exist in biblical times. This will become clear if you look at various lexica that show you the ways in which a word has been used at different times throughout history. You’ll also find that these terms had to do with the organization of each local ekklesia. Biblical instruction on how the leaders of these ekklesia should relate to one another does exist, but it is minimal. One thing we do know, however, is that their relationship was collegiate in nature rather than hierarchical.

The second category of "faithful people" is presbyteroi, the presbyters, priests, elders.

The earliest organization of Christian elders was similar to that of the Jewish synagogues. They could only be called “priests” only in the loosest sense of having a role of leadership within a religion; these Christian presbyters neither performed nor re-presented sacrifices during biblical times. “Elder” or “presbyter” are much better descriptors of their roles than “priest.”

The more specifically sacrifice-oriented word for priest (ἱερεύς, or hiereus) is the word that I’m far more interested in. It’s used over 30 times in the New Testament, mostly with reference to Jewish priests or priests of other religions (ie., the priest of Zeus in Acts 14) that offer sacrifices to God. In Revelation, however, the word is also used three times, and always with reference to a universal priesthood of Christians.

A more exclusive “ἱερεύς” kind of Christian priesthood that concerns itself with the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice is not biblical, nor was this done during biblical times.

The third category of “faithful people” is diaconoi, deacons.

I don’t think we have much to disagree on with this category, aside from the fact that the permanent diaconate largely disappeared in the West during the course of the first millennium. While it did continue to exist as a temporary step along the way to priesthood (in the ἱερεύς sense of the word), it wasn’t until the 20th century that the permanent diaconate was reestablished in most of the major Western rites. But it is good to see that the permanent diaconate was preserved in the Eastern churches from apostolic times to the present day.

We are at a crossroads of definitions here; There is no “disunity” in the western Catholic Church.

This is my basis for saying there is.

The Catholic basis for declaring your own unity with each other and to the Catholic Church is that you’re in submission to the pontiff and to any of the teaching that he says you have to be in submission to. As you look around the world and identify people with whom you share Catholic unity, you find people based on who else is in submission to Rome and what he (the pope) teaches.

There was a time when the West was largely unified in this way. And then there was a time when a fairly large number of those people- once united in the Catholic sense of unity- ceased to be united with their former brethren. When this happened, it was an example of disunity. This disunity became more widespread and pronounced over time. It did not get better or go away; it did quite the opposite.

You are claiming disunity in the Catholic Church because “catholic” protestant reformers left her, and many followed them?

Yes. And I know that the reformers ceased to be a part of the Catholic Church, but that is what generally happens when a large group of people used to be united to something and then they cease to be united to it. When disunity happens, cessation of unity kind of goes with the territory.

Are you claiming that the Protestant Reformation was actually an example of unity?

That does not equate disunity in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church remained united to its head.

Did I say anything about the head? Why are you talking about the head? What I said was this. There was a time when 99% of Christians in the West were Catholic, and that was a high standard of unity by Catholic definition. Now we’re looking at something less than 70% and dropping. As this continues to happen, we’re looking at a steadily decreasing measure of unity. Western Christians used to be united in the Catholic sense of unity by being in submission to the pope, but this is increasingly no longer the case.

I do believe all Christians are united in a way that has nothing to do with the Catholic definition of unity, but as long as we are using Catholic terms to describe Catholic unity, the Catholic Church is not as united as it once was and is becoming increasingly disunited.

I find no disunity in the Catholic Church

You can find people like me everywhere.

this can never happen because she is the body of Christ and the body of Christ is never divided as you claim.

That is not what I claim. Look at what I claim. Don’t make things up.

Are you protesting and arguing, that when the Catholic Church protected and preserved the apostolic faith in the Trinity 300+ years after the death of the last apostle

If you stopped right here and asked if I protest this development, this would be a very easy question- not even worth asking, really. You know the answer to it.

and defined this apostolic “oral” Tradition and biblical supported faith

This is the part that makes it…a loaded question, at best.

 

[cooterhein]

This is at best highly debatable and at worst a gross understatement of what YOU can really conclude historically. All of this is quite anachronistic. VERY

I’ve looked into it pretty carefully, and this seems to be what the really good historians have come up with. I’m sure you’ll get something different from your run-of-the-mill Catholic apologist, but I tend to defer to the work of first-rate historians. That’s just me, though.

I also don’t think I’m being anachronistic. I believe you are, and that you really have to be, to some extent. As for me, your argument was very convincing, but it didn’t quite succeed in swaying me.

Who were the “presbyters” or “elders” (Greek Presbuteros) in the Epistle of James (5:14 I believe)? If they were priests, then you are wrong. If not, then what were they?

If by “priest” you mean ἱερεύς, no, they were not Christian priests that had any kind of sacrificial responsibilities placed on them by God. They were known as presbyters, or elders. It was a leadership role within Christianity, but it was not the same as that of ἱερεύς.

This is what you are assuming. You are assuming that since a whole bunch of people left, that means that the Church split and became Churches.

No, I’m really not. I’m assuming that the Catholic measure of unity between one Catholic and another is a common submission to Rome, common membership in the CC, and a reception of Catholic sacraments that is held in common. This is how Catholics become united to each other and to the Catholic Church.

I then go on to say nearly all Christians in the West used to be united to each other and to the CC in the Catholic sense of unity, but that changed when a huge number of Catholics stopped being Catholics and stopped being united to the CC in this way. When that happened, that was an example of disunity according to the Catholic definition of unity. Ever since then, the Catholic Church has continued to become more and more disunited as it continues to lose market share of Christianity in the West.

I believe there is only one Christian Church in the world, and every Christian belongs to it by virtue of being a Christian. (I don’t believe this is synonymous with the Catholic Church, but that should go without saying). I believe in a unity of all Christians that has nothing to do with sacraments or ecclesial membership; consequently, the Catholic definition of unity has no use to me personally. It has some use for you, though, and you believe the reception of Catholic sacraments and formal Catholic membership does cause some significant form of unity to happen between you and the Church as well as between you and other Catholics. According to your understanding of how unity is related to these things, the Reformation had a lot to do with the state of unity between Catholics and the brand-new group of former Catholics as well as the unity between the Reformers and the Church.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;7463362]My intent is not disrespectful, Jon.

Hi Jim.
That’s fine. We’ve conversed enough for me to be able to confidently take your word for it.
Consider, however, the effect on our conversation were I to use terms like “popery”, or “Romish”. In fact, if one checks my posts, you won’t even find Roman Catholic, or RCC because I know that some Catholics are put off by them.

But, since Luther didn’t reform the Catholic Church, what shall I call his actions? He left a still-bleeding wound in the Church. The Church, which needed reforming, reformed herself. “Reformation” is a Protestant term, as is Luther’s title, “The Great Reformer.” Both are misnomers.

Why did she reform herself? Would you not say that Trent was a response to what the Church believed Luther was wrong and right about? As to the term Reformation, it remains appropriate only if those of us who claim it recognize that the intent of the Reformation was not separate communions, and that reconciliation with the rest of the Christian Church generally, but most notably with Rome must be a constant goal, in light of Christ’s call that we all be one. When we come to the point where we are comfortable with schism, then you are right, it is a “deformation”, and Christ’s Church and its ministry, by the actions of men on both sides, have been wounded.

Excommunication is intended to make the person aware of the seriousness of their actions, prompt the person to reconsider their actions, to repent, and to return to the Church. Luther broke from the Church, started his own ecclesial body with his own doctrines, and started – whether he intended to or not – an avalanche of denominations that continues to this day at a rate of about five a week, all based on Sola Scriptura.

You are aware that the demand that he recant included those things he said for which he was later vindicated.

Sorry I got them out of order. No, they didn’t split from Luther. But they – and all subsequent denominations – were/are based on the concept of Scripture Alone, one of the pillars of Protestantism announced by Luther. I think most are based also on Luther’s Faith Alone.

And all of them broke from - Rome!! Clearly, obviously, there was a problem in Rome at the time.

Scripture, like all writing, has to be interpreted. It is intended to be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. The NT can’t be correctly understood except in the context in which it was written – in the heart of the believing, teaching Church that wrote it.

Which Church is that, Jim? Should I believe the one patriarch who broke off on his own, claiming authority and jurisdiction not provided him in the early Church, or the others that remain in communion with each other?

Luther intended that HIS interpretation of Scripture be followed and was quite upset when others taught their own ideas. Sola Scriptura is like Pandora’s box. It may not have been Luther’s intention, but every Protestant is empowered to become his own interpreter and final authority on Scripture.

Sola scriptura is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding accountable all teachers and teachings. It is a tool of hermeunetics, which is praced by the Church.

Is there an authority in Lutheranism?

In my synod, it is the leaders of said synod, who are accountable to scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, the early councils, etc.

The Church teaches the truth. Just as there is salvation only through Christ, there is no salvation outside His Church, which is His Body. Have you read the meaning of the doctrine in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Every human being who is saved is saved through Christ and His Church, whether they know it in this life or not.

Yes, I have read it, and I referred to it in the next few sentences, when I wrote, *"Just as the Catholic Church has, **in its catechism, developed *its view of noncatholic Christians…" And I have no disagreement with the point, except that His Church is not exclusive to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

As a former Southern Baptist, I assure you that “Antichrist” and “whore of Babylon” are prevalent beliefs in many Protestant circles, inherited from Luther.

Not in mine.

You see no difference in Luther issuing a Bible that removes these writings from the canon and an opinion expressed by others.

No. Cardinal Cajetan and others said essentially the same thing. Had Luther done so after Trent (and before his excommunication), you whould have a point.

continued

 

[JonNC]

That’s an opinion, Jon, an assumption. I’ll take Luther’s word(s) for it. He did not restore Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to their rightful place in Scripture within his lifetime, nor did he ever express regret about his actions to remove them from the canon, to my knowledge. His followers replaced them, I believe in the 17th century. The removal of the deuterocanon has endured.

Those were Luther’s words that I quoted, not my opinion. What has endured is the acceptance of the antilegomena by virtually all Christians as canon.

You regard Luther as a hero. I regard Luther as a villian.

A hero? No. Neither was he a villain.

But you are free to express your opinion, and I am free to express mine. I find nothing I’ve ever read about Luther redeeming. I regard him as a tortured man, afflicted with mental illness, probably as a result of his maltreatment as a child by both his parents – a man who could not find peace, scrupulous about his sins – who descrated the Bible and inflicted wounds upon the Body of Christ which are still unhealed to this day. I pray for his soul.

Honestly, Jim. Why would you pray for his soul if he was a villain? There are some who paint Luther with a sanitizing brush, and there are others, like O’Hare and Denifle, intentionally character asassinate him. Both parties do no service to history or the unity of the Church.

I suffered as a Protestant and an atheist for too long, so I find my own healing difficult. Please pray for me.

I will, my friend, and I ask God to hear your prayers to His saints in Heaven, and their prayers for us.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

And also with you,
Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What else is needed? Jesus Christ Church. Read the Bible again Richard. Jesus founded His Church,not a nicely compiled book. Really? Tell me how the first Jews who had no Bible managed salvation with no written Bible? Sorry Richard,but your exegesis is flawed. Where does Jesus teach explicitly:

Scripture alone is enough for salvation.

Show me where Jesus says **scriptures-alone **is sufficient?

St.Paul NO WHERE teaches scripture alone is enough for salvation,that is a Protestant invention and accepted as a truth.

Jesus instituted His Church for one reason and that reason is to preach to the world the words of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Matt28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

These words are also found in the bible
2Tim3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The apostles and their disciples taught the Gospel message orally and it is still taught orally in most churches, but the word of God was eventually written down and compiled into the bible also called the Law and the Prophets. The purpose of the Law and the Prophets is #1) to show us that we are sinners and unworthy of eternal life. This is done through the Law. #2) to show us the solution to that sin problem and that is found in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This message of salvation in Jesus Christ is what the apostles and their disciples were beaconed by Jesus to tell the world about in the Great Commission Matt 28:19, 20 And this message is also found totally and completely in the bible. We also are given gifts of the Holy Spirit in order to preach this very same message.

Eph.4
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

It is this message and non other that we are to preach.

Gal.1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

 

[benidict]

and it has been the Catholic Church that has been preaching the True Gospel without doctrinal error, along with the traditons the Apostles handed down, for over 2000 years. One deposit of Faith. the Catholic Church has weathered all storms, all the rage of those who ARE swayed to and fro. and held firm. I would say Christ is still keeping his promise.