I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[joe370]

Joe370
Quote:
I certainly think the Church (held accountable to scriture) is His tool for guiding the faithful.

God bless you Joe, it was hard for me to see this; albeit, for months i knew it was right after reading and reading the bilbe and then The Fathers… It was very hard leaving my Baptist brothers but this one point would not leave me alone. I appreciate your courage. God bless you.

God bless you too my friend and I can certainly appreciate how difficult your decision to come home to the CC must have been. I hope that your former Baptist brothers, at least on an ecclesial level, continue to be your brothers in Christ for life.

Thanks for the feedback brother…

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust that you had an enjoyable weekend. Thankyou for your responses to my posts.

First, even though St. Paul aknowldeged that the O.T. Scriptures were able to instruct young Timothy “for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3: 15), that, notwithstanding, did not dispense with the need of the teaching-chair of Moses in which the official expounders of the word of God sat (S. Matt. 23: 2-3). The O.T. faithful were accordingly to “practice and observe whatever” their duly ordained leaders told them, and this even our Lord Himself accepted without demur. His primary concern was that thier obedience should not lead to imitation because the Scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites at heart, as we all know. Having said that, I agree that it is right and proper that we should read and meditate upon God’s most holy word (cf. Ps. 1).

St. Hilliary’s remarks only serve to underscrore the need for an official interpretative authority, otherwise heresy does indeed proliferate, as the entire history of Protestantism testifies. Moreover, as I said previously, the churches of the Reformation do in point of fact differ even over the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy, thus within Anglicanism, for example, your High Church party believes in Baptismal Regeneration, yet the Evangelical faction strongly reject this “ultra-Catholic heresy”, and history shows that their have been major disagreements (the Gorham controversy of the 19th century) over this very issue. Therefore, once again, this highlights the grave problems which arise when religion becomes a doctrinal free-for-all and men interpret the bible according to thier own reason and theological perspective.

It was because private interpretation was a most dangerous pursuit, that the O.T. faithful were bidden to “seek instruction” from the duly ordained priests (Mal. 2: 7), for they were the official messengers of the Lord. Why should this requiement be dispensed with under the glorious new economy, are men less like to fall into error today than in times past? With the coming of the Gospel age Christ sent His Church to teach men, thus transfering to the Church that authority once possessed by the priests of the O.T. Moreover, we can see this exmplified in the N.T. when St. Philip the Deacon says to the Ethopian, who was reading from the O.T., “Do you understand what you are reading?”. The good man replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8: 30-31), thus proving what Protestantants fail to accept, namely that the bible is not essentially clear and self-interpreting, even with regards to essential doctrines. Eqaully devout and equally bible-believing men differ over the meaning and elucidation of the sacred text. If it be said by way of reply that Christ promised He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth, then we would respond by saying that Jesus did not promise the the Holy Spirit would teach each individual *separately * - the N.T. nowhere teaches this. If that were so then, even when allowance is made for man in his fallen estate, every individual supposedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and who sincerely reads scipture would surely come to the very same conclusions. Alas, such is not the case. Indeed, the Catholic would contend that the frightful chaos as to the meaning of scripture is actually proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this manner of ‘guidance’. My dear friend, are you really asking us to believe that the Spirit of God would lead sincere and devout men into contradictory notions? Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the only Church which evinces that it has been so preserved is the Catholic Church. True, the individual Christian is guided by the Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but as touching the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be instructed and guided by the one true Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.

If it be said that Protestant clergy are no less capable of guiding/instructing their flock than Catholic priests theirs, we reply that Protestant clergy do not claim to be authoritative spokesmen of an infallible Church. Thus, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, does not claim to have role analgous to the Holy Father. Indeed, much of his energy is expended in trying to keep the dispirate groups within the Anglican pale together!, a task that is proving increasingly difficult, I may add. The Protestant clergy on their own principles have to admit that they are possibly wrong. Even where they are agreed in the essential doctrines of the bible, they come, as I have said, to all manner of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholic priests is a greater indication of capability than the doctrinal and moral chaos that is Protestantism. However, the capability of Catholic priests has little to do with relative personal attaintment. It is derived from the authority of the infallible Catholic Church established by Christ upon St. Peter. Only this can explain its unity in faith and morals.

Goodbye for now, I will reply to your other post shortly so please standy by, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Then I ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body…

Yes, we did. You just disagreed with us.

You describe the position of your church as it assumes authority over the Word of God by insisting it alone can interpret Scripture. This is not true of Protestants. While we interpret Scripture, and do so at the command of God, we never assume authority over it by claiming “infallibility”.

It doesn’t have “authority OVER the Word of God”. It is the final authority to proclaim as true what has been believed since the time of the Aposles as seen in Scripture and Oral Tradition. I wonder how many times we have to correct you before you stop falsifying Catholic information.

This is a comparison of apples to oranges. Protestants don’t make a fallible decision to disavow their responsibility to study Scripture for themselves, however, Roman Catholics do.

How ignorant and hateful you are to Catholics to falsify what we think.

Where do you find in Catholic teaching that we disavow responsibility to study Scripture? Or are you just trying to fuel you anti-Catholic bigotry?

Simply not true. I do not “entrust” my spiritual life to any man, however, the same cannot be said of Roman Catholics. They have made the fallible decision to entrust their spiritual lives to a pope and a magisterium. Unfortunately, support for neither is found in Scripture nor did the early church subscribe to either.

Again, we don’t entrust out spiritual lives to a pope or magisterium. What is your problem? I thought you said you wanted reasoned arguments. That is certainly not the case with your posts.

Well, we certainly cannot say that Roman Catholism is immune to “all sorts of novel and bizzare ideas”.

YOU can’t. We can and we are right. There are no novel or bizarre ideas in Catholic theology. I admonish you to provide examples and reasons why they are as such.

You claim but rarely substantiate.

Actually, you’ve haven’t established your point at all. In no sense, do Protestants have a “final interpretive authority”. That is the position of the Roman Catholic. Besides, you are simply assuming a position with regard to your church which you haven’t even begun to prove. There was no pope or magisterium in the early church, but only Christians who lived and argued together at the prodding of the Holy Spirit. Bishops and councils tried to settle disputes but some of these were in error on key points and in the case of councils often they were reversed by other councils.

Catholics did establish their point. You just disagreed. Unfairness, ad hominem, straw man… Anything else you wish to add to that list?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

To begin with we know Scripture doesn’t teach those doctrines and neither did the early church.

Nice bolding to tell us you can’t actualy provide reasons to refute our claims

But a better approach for you might have been this: “To begin with, we know that Catholic teachings are much-disputed by most Christians.” THAT, my friend, is true. (What you said isn’t, unless you can support it without dispute.)

That shows more strength and less bias. The way you worded it shows considerable weakness and bias.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

We know that Paul is not referring to any modern RCC doctrines such as a papacy, the Marian doctrines, infallibility, etc. Rather, he was speaking about his oral teaching as mentioned in vs 15 and vs 5 - the second coming of Jesus - that it must be preceded by apostasy and the rise of antichrist in the church, and that the Thessalonians should hold fast to that teaching, and not be so easily misled by anyone into believing that Jesus’ return was imminent. As we see from the context what was to be “passed on” was that which Paul preached – not “new doctrines”. When we simply read the context we see that Paul is reviewing in writing what he had previously preached in person in Thessalonica regarding the immanency of the second coming and apostasy entering the church. None of this offers any help for “oral traditions”.

Finally you give some reasons.

As is made clear in verse 14, Paul is talking about the gospel, which includes (but is not limited to) the Second Coming.

He does tell them not to be shaken by letter or oral statements allegedly by Paul or another Apostle in verse 3 (or 4?).

But he does make sure about the oral tradition of the Gospel, which himself taught. So, yes, it does offer much “help” to substantiate our point.

And the doctrines of the Catholic Church are not new or modern as you wish to believe.

Then I must ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body.

Yes, we did. You just disagreed. Again, authoritative words of the Lord are found in ORAL Tradition of the Church.

Stop asking to read something not written. That is unreasonable, even for you. Then again, that is the second time you ask. Maybe you should ask for a square circle.

As is evident, we can see how easy it is to propagate fiction especially since word of mouth is notoriously unreliable.

True enough, but if the Holy Spirit guided the Oral Tradition of the OT (before it was written down), why would it be impossible in the NT era?

In other words, according to you, is the Holy Spirit able to protect Oral Tradition from falsity in Christ’s Church (which He said will not be overrun by the netherworld)?

If so, that would be correct; otherwise, there would be no reason to accept any biblical writings as infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), *"The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, *

This is a curious objection. Surely you know that the word “trinity” was not used exclusively to describe the Godhead until…when?

 

[David_Castlen]

God bless you too my friend and I can certainly appreciate how difficult your decision to come home to the CC must have been. I hope that your former Baptist brothers, at least on an ecclesial level, continue to be your brothers in Christ for life.

Thanks for the feedback brother…

I do not want to clog this blog down with more writing from me; the responses in here are fantastic from both the Prosts and Caths. I just want you to know that I was on great terms with my old church until a new person there began to spread the word that we Catholics sacrifice Jesus voer and over. I lost it… Anyway … please do not resond to this… you guys keep on message.

 

[PRmerger]

Then I ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body.

We provided something even better (at least, in this context)–your quoting Scripture, which is, of course, a submission to this “authentic voice” of this universal authoritative interpretive body (read: the Catholic Church).

Each and every time you quote St. Paul or Hebrews or St. John or St. Matthew, etc etc etc you are acknowledging that this universal authoritative interpretive body (read: the Catholic Church) has authority over you.

For when you stated below that "Paul said " the ONLY way you know firstly that Paul said it is because this universal authoritative interpretive body (read: the Catholic Church) preserved the writings for you, and secondly because this universal authoritative interpretive body (read: the Catholic Church) discerned for you that it was truly theopneustos and not just another ecclesial Christian writer putting to words his own thoughts/opinions.

Paul is saying that all men, both Jew and Gentile are now brought together in one “fellowship” – one church(verse 9) where can be observed the magnificence of God’s salvation through the Lord Jesus which was of great interest to the angels(verse 10).

I could provide numerous other examples of your deferring to this universal authoritative interpretive body (read: the Catholic Church), if you’d like.

But I think it’s enough proof that you quote Hebrews or St. Matthew or St. John.

Enough said! Kelman defers to the authority of the Catholic Church, so why ask for examples of an “authoritative word from the Lord or his Apostles”?

 

[pablope]

Then I ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body.

GreggA is correcr, we have provided evidence but you ignore it. Look back to post 914.

You describe the position of your church as it assumes authority over the Word of God by insisting it alone can interpret Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

To begin with we know Scripture doesn’t teach those doctrines and neither did the early church. It’s got nothing to do with “mere charge” it’s simply a fact church historians, on both sides, agree with. For example, we can look to both Roman Catholic and Protestant church historians who write that the churches were led not by “one” bishop but by a plurality – including the church at Rome.

Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.”

This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:

*”In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time.”

Shared leadership is rooted in the Old Testament institution of the elders of Israel and in Jesus’ founding of the apostolate. It is a highly significant but often overlooked fact that our Lord did not appoint one man to lead His church. He personally appointed and trained twelve men. Jesus Christ gave the church plurality of leadership. The Twelve comprised the first leadership council of the church and, in the most exemplary way, jointly led and taught the first Christian community."*

Another Roman Catholic historian:
“Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish…The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops…The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop…The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with authority over the whole local church…Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have also been led at that time by a group of presbyters…There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure of become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church” (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 13,14,15).

How lovely,but I did not READ ONE early church father claim there was no such thing as papal infallibility,Marian doctrines,etc.

You provided SECONDARY sources,now please provide what I asked: PRIMARY & EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!

 

[Portrait]

We know that Paul is not referring to any modern RCC doctrines such as a papacy, the Marian doctrines, infallibility, etc. Rather, he was speaking about his oral teaching as mentioned in vs 15 and vs 5 - the second coming of Jesus - that it must be preceded by apostasy and the rise of antichrist in the church, and that the Thessalonians should hold fast to that teaching, and not be so easily misled by anyone into believing that Jesus’ return was imminent. As we see from the context what was to be “passed on” was that which Paul preached – not “new doctrines”. When we simply read the context we see that Paul is reviewing in writing what he had previously preached in person in Thessalonica regarding the immanency of the second coming and apostasy entering the church. None of this offers any help for “oral traditions”.

Then I must ask again for an example of an authoritative word from the Lord or His Apostles that is not found in Scripture? You assume an “authentic voice” but have not offered any scriptural evidence for a universal authoritative interpretive body. The church did very well on its own without a pope or a magisterium for hundreds of years – so what changed?

Dear kelman,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Unfortunately, the word ‘tradition’ is a red flag to some Protestants and they seem to think that the simple Gospel became encrusted with ornate beliefs and esoteric customs that have no basis in Sacred Scripture. However the fact is thatSola scriptura was completely unknown to the early Fathers of the Church and they regularly made their appeal to ecclesiastical tradition as a rule of faith in the interpretation of difficult and disputed passages of scripture. The relatively modern theory that the bible is the sole rule of faith cannot be sustained and cannot be validated even by scripture itself. On the contrary, the bible asserts that there was to be an enduring oral tradition or teaching that would be transmitted from generation to generation. St. Paul employs the word ‘tradition’ for this oral strand of teaching in several places. Thus in II Thess 3: 6 he says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any bother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you have received from us”. Now the apostle states that these traditions are in both oral and written form: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (II Thess. 2: 15). Well says St. Augustine, “There are many things which the universal Church holds, and therefore rightly believes to have been taught by the Apostles, even though they are not found written down” (On Baptism, V, 23 & 31, emphasis mine). It is an error to declare that everything can be known with certainty by Sacred Scripture alone. Accordingly, the Catholic Church quite righty regards Scripture and Tradition as equally important fonts of the one Revelation given by Christ and entrusted to the apostles.

Writing around the year 180 AD, Bishop Irenaeus says that it is actually because Church leaders have inherited apostolic authority that they can interpret Scripture properly:

“By knowledge of the truth we mean: the teaching of the Apostles; the order of the Church as established from earliest times throughout the world…*preserved through the episcopal *succession: for to the bishops the apostles committed the care of the Church in each place which has come down to our own time safeguarded by…the most complete exposition…the reading of the Scriptures without falsification and careful and consistent exposition of them - avoiding both rashness and blasphemy” (Adv. Her.IV, 23, emphasis mine).

We Catholics believe, dear friend, that the dynamic teaching authority which Christ gave His apostles continues to live through the ministry of the Catholic bishops who have received their authority in direct line from the apostles - passed down over the last 2,000 years. Now it is owing to this direct link that Catholics firmly believe the Church has a living connection with the apostolic authority. Therefore within the living apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church one can find a rock-solid, sure and certain, historic and unified body of teaching which illuminates and elucidates the bible without fail. Now what Protestant Church can make such a claim today?

Will respond to your other post in due course. God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: Purgatory is not a second change nor saves anyone. Those in purgatory are saved otherwise they would not be in purgatory but hell.

No one has asserted that it was a “second change” or that it "saves anyone.

JL: Did I say you or anyone asserted so? No. I simply covered a common misconception.

LK 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, AS THOU ART IN THE WAY, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into PRISON. 59 I tell thee, THOU SHALT NOT DEPART THENCE, TILL thou hast paid the very last mite.

Nothing to do with purgatory, that’s for sure. It’s speaking about paying your creditors before going to the court(magistrate) to avoid paying interest on the debt or being thrown into prison.

JL: So Christ came preaching earthly things such as how to be financially secure and avoid prison here on earth? Instead of teaching about spiritual things? Especially about being spiritually prepared for our own particular JUDGMENT. Wow how insightful you are. I’m so impressed and amazed with you answer kelman .

It’s the same concept Mainonides taught and it’s doubtful he believed in “purgatory”.

"when he that lends, requires what he has lent, though he is rich, and the borrower is distressed, and straitened for food, there is no mercy showed him in judgment, but his debt is, demanded of him , “unto the last prutah, or mite”.’’ Hilchot M. vah. c. 1. sect. 4.

JL: Sort of mirrors [Mt 18:23 Therefore is **THE KINDOM OF HEAVEN LIKENED UNTO A certain KING, which would take account of his servants. … 32 Then his lord … said … I forgave thee …33… Shouldn’t you …34 his lord delivered him to the TORMENTORS till he should pay all due him 35 … LIKEWISE … my heavenly Father WILL DO TO YOU if ye from YOUR HEARTS FORGIVE NOT every one his brother their trespasses] The Servant owed the king, the king forgave him. Yet the Servant who was owed by another had no mercy on the one who owed him.

With your own post, Maimonides in his own words, confirm he is speaking of JUDGMENT, not finance. In your post I put judgment in bold print for emphases. Maimonides lived 1138-1204 it is not doubtful he believed in prayers for the dead, whatever it was called. Jews even today pray for their dead eleven months and 2Maccabees12:38 speaks of offering a sacrifice for the dead. Why pray for the dead if they can’t be helped?

Paul would not only be praying for Onesiphorus’ family in 2Tm1:16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:] but also for the repose of the soul of Onesiphorus in 2Tm1:18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.] MERCY on THAT DAY, would indicate judgement, [Hb9:27 And as it is appointed unto men to die once, and after that comes judgment,] In closing the letter Paul does not memtion Onesiphorus but salutes his household. [2Tm4:19 Salute Prisca and Aquila, and THE HOUSEHOLD of Onesiphorus.]

This would also indicate Onesiphorus is dead and Paul is praying for the repose of his soul. Strongly indicating Paul believed in a temporary place/state (purgatory) other than heaven and hell. Prayer for those in heaven would be superfluous as they have no needs. Also prayer for those in hell would be superfluous as they are beyond help.

We see in Scripture(Luke 18:14 for one) that the Lord forgave sin in advance of any restitution on the part of the penitent sinner…even restitution that could never be made! Scripture after Scripture negates even the possibility of purgatory

JL: All sins and temporal punishment are forgiven in baptism. For sins commited and forgiven, AFTER baptism, one goes off justified, Lk18:14. Yet repairing the damage our sin caused is required. For instance if I tell a lie about someone. Although I have been forgiven the sin and go to my house justified, as Lk18:14 says. I must make every effort to repair the damage done by my lie. We call that temporal punishment. If I fail to satisfy the temporal punishment on earth, then by God’s great mercy, I will in purgatory.

 

[jlhargus]

Quote: JL: [1Cor3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made MANIFEST: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the FIRE SHALL TRY EVERY MAN’S WORK OF WHAT SORT IT IS. 14 IF ANY MAN’S WORK ABIDE which he hath built thereupon, HE SHALL RECEIVE A REWARD. 15 IF any man’s work shall be BURNED, he shall suffer LOSS: but HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED; YET SO AS BY FIRE.]

When one doesn’t avoid the context, we see Paul is speaking about preaching the Gospel - being ministers of the Gospel. Those who will build upon the foundation he laid(vs 10) are labourers with him(vs 9). He warns to heed how you build(vs 10). If any builds upon the foundation of Christ it will produce either gold, silver, precious stones(those saved) OR wood, hay, stubble(the unsaved)(vs 12).

In other words, preaching might result in either salvation or damnation to those who hear, there are no guarantees for the minister of the Word…the Gospel is “the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.” The minister’s work will one day be made manifest. Of those who heard, who became the gold, silver, precious stones? OR who became the wood, hay stubble? This is revealed in the “fire” - day of judgment(vs 13)

The “work” that abides (gold,silver, precious stones) will be the reward for the one who ministered to these, to see them become saved(vs 14). If the “work” is burned(wood, hay, stubble) the minister will suffer the loss of these who did not become saved; but it has no bearing on his own salvation(vs 15).

JL: That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would a minister or anyone who did what they were supposed to do SUFFER LOSS AS IF BY FIRE? Is it just to punish one for the failings of another? If a minister preaches to a group and some accept Christ and some don’t. Is the minister to suffer loss because some didn’t accept or some accepted and fail away by their own choice? How is that the minister’s fault what more could he do? Sorry your theory just doesn’t work.

I have no problem with the context of Paul speaking primarily to ministers. Yet in a secondary sense Paul is speaking to all Christians. All are called to build up the Church all are laborers in the field not just ministers. Fire shall try EVERY MAN’S work of what sort it is, 1Cor3:13.
How can a WORK be carried with us into death when we are spirit, and take nothing with us? Works are brought to the judgement in the HEART or SOUL’S intention. Was the intention of the work, for love of God. Or for the praise it will bring to self, or even half and half? That inclination, to works of wood, hay, stubble, will be purged by fire to render the soul pure. Just as gold which has impurities and is purified, as though by fire. The HEART or soul must be separated from the impure works of wood, hay or stubble.

[Jer 17:9 THE HEART IS DECEITFUL above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 ** I THE LORD SEARCH THE HEART and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.]

[Mk7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that WHATSOEVER THING FROM WITHOUT ENTERETH INTO THE MAN, it CANNOT DEFILE HIM; 19 Because IT ENTERETH NOT into HIS HEART, BUT INTO THE BELLY, and goeth out into the draught, PRUGING ALL MEATS? 20 And he said, **THAT WHICH COMETH OUT OF THE MAN, that DEFILETH THE MAN.

 

[Portrait]

You describe the position of your church as it assumes authority over the Word of God by insisting it alone can interpret Scripture. This is not true of Protestants. While we interpret Scripture, and do so at the command of God, we never assume authority over it by claiming “infallibility”.

Dear kelman,

The man who believes that the bible is his only guide and instructor ends up believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the bible and “assumes authority over the word of God”. It does entail belief in the infallibilty of his own judgement - which is not belief in the authority of Christ.

The Protestant rule of faith is incomplete, most uncertain and has resulted in a multitude of ecclesial communions, all claiming to possess the truth, whilst the Catholic rule of faith has preserved unity among millions of its adherents. Is not perfectly reasonable to argue that Christ surely gave a rule of faith calculated to preserve unity rather than produce diversity and confusion?

Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[kelman]

First, even though St. Paul aknowldeged that the O.T. Scriptures were able to instruct young Timothy “for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3: 15), that, notwithstanding, did not dispense with the need of the teaching-chair of Moses in which the official expounders of the word of God sat (S. Matt. 23: 2-3). The O.T. faithful were accordingly to “practice and observe whatever” their duly ordained leaders told them, and this even our Lord Himself accepted without demur.

The term “Moses’ seat” most likely refers to the chair from which the Scriptures were read. Their authority would be primarily magisterial, not doctrinal. In Scripture we see Moses acting mainly as “judge” and the priests’ role was maintained over “theology”. Dr. Lightfoot explains it this way: ”This is to be understood rather of the legislative seat (or chair), than of the merely doctrinal: and Christ here asserts the authority of the magistrate, and persuadeth to obey him in lawful things"

Jesus was not capriciously endorsing “whatever” the Pharisees told them to do. Jesus was telling them to do whatever the Pharisees “said” since they were reading Scripture - not when they made-up their own traditions. He often railed against their many traditions which did damage to the written Word. One thing we know for sure, the Lord was not endorsing all tradition and certainly no indication of any “infallibility”. So, the idea of Moses’ seat really doesn’t provide any support for the interpretive authority the RCC believes it has.

St. Hilliary’s remarks only serve to underscrore the need for an official interpretative authority, otherwise heresy does indeed proliferate, as the entire history of Protestantism testifies.

Hilary’s remarks are simply one of many which prove, first of all, that there was no universal interpretive authority for hundreds of years and the church did just fine and second that some of the RCC doctrines do not line up with the teachings of many church fathers.

Therefore, once again, this highlights the grave problems which arise when religion becomes a doctrinal free-for-all and men interpret the bible according to thier own reason and theological perspective.

Rome is not exempted from “doctrinal free-for-all” as is seen from the introduction of its modern doctrines; it interprets according to its own reason and theological perspective.

It was because private interpretation was a most dangerous pursuit, that the O.T. faithful were bidden to “seek instruction” from the duly ordained priests (Mal. 2: 7), for they were the official messengers of the Lord. Why should this requiement be dispensed with under the glorious new economy, are men less like to fall into error today than in times past?

First, the NT provides no office of “priest”. Second, Mal 2 is a very strong indictment against the priesthood. ”1And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you…2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.” This chapter is actually indicating that God is abrogating the Levitical priesthood for its evils – notice the “past” tense used in verse 5. Verse 6 is a reiteration of Levi’s obligation under the covenant - one which he faithfully kept. However now, it is an obligation continually violated by Israel’s priests. Verse 7 can now be understood in its context that it is the statement of an ideal violated and not the indication of any reliability of human priests. As biblical scholar George Buttrick puts it: “The institution of sacerdotal man has been demonstrated throughout five thousand years of human history as a shamefully incompetent and ineffective device.” Israel’s priesthood succeeded little better than the pagans in the communication of God’s will to humanity.

With the coming of the Gospel age Christ sent His Church to teach men, thus transfering to the Church that authority once possessed by the priests of the O.T.

We see no evidence of a NT office of priest and besides as we just saw in the entire chapter of Mal 2 God essentially condemned and abrogated the priesthood, although, it would find its total physical destruction when the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Moreover, we can see this exmplified in the N.T. when St. Philip the Deacon says to the Ethopian, who was reading from the O.T., “Do you understand what you are reading?”. The good man replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8: 30-31), thus proving what Protestantants fail to accept, namely that the bible is not essentially clear and self-interpreting, even with regards to essential doctrines.

These verses have nothing to do with whether or not Scripture is perspicuous. It should be no secret that the NT illuminates the OT which is simply what Philip was doing here - he preached the Gospel which was later written down so that we would always have truth… In addition, we see that God gave us teachers to help guide us, noticeably though, God does not say He has given us either a pope or magisterium.

 

[kelman]

…then we would respond by saying that Jesus did not promise the the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately - the N.T. nowhere teaches this.

What is meant by “all truth”…surely not all mathematical or geographical truth? Rather, the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God, of the Gospel with regard to the salvation of the church by Christ (Acts 20:27). The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth necessary for faith and obedience (Acts 20:21). These truths which are able to give us eternal life are found in Scripture(1Jn 5:13) and are taught by the church – if it is faithful to the written Word. And yes the Holy Spirit teaches each and every individual believer separately because without the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives not a one of us could ever hope for salvation. This promise is similar to that of Jn 6:45 ”They shall all be taught of God” for this is how we learn of God and our condition before Him, and in no other way.

…every individual supposedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and who sincerely reads scipture would surely come to the very same conclusions. Alas, such is not the case.

This is not the promise of God, however, He does promise that Scripture is sufficient to bring men to salvation and is the place in which we find the road to faith. Both the RCC and the EO claim apostolic succession, claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and yet are not even in communion with one another. Both have been led in different directions. Can this be blamed on the Holy Spirit? This is no different from two people reading the same scriptural passage yet coming to different conclusions….just as we often see the ECFs doing.

Indeed, the Catholic would contend that the frightful chaos as to the meaning of scripture is actually proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this manner of ‘guidance’. My dear friend, are you really asking us to believe that the Spirit of God would lead sincere and devout men into contradictory notions?

Those who proclaim and actually practice sola Scriptura are not in a “frightful chaos” as to the meaning of Scripture. As we are told in 1Jn 5:13 the Scriptures are written so that we might believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby have eternal life. It is belief in “these things I have written” that brings eternal life – not a church. Concerning guidance, your church is in the same predicament as any other so I ask you again did the Holy Spirit lead the devout men of the RCC and EO into “contradictory notions”? The great promise of the NT is that all believers shall be **“taught by God” **(Jn 6:45; 1Thes 4:9). No man is self-taught in sacred things nor is he taught of any man. The Holy Spirit enables believers to discern, know and understand the mind and will of God as revealed in the Scriptures.

Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the only Church which evinces that it has been so preserved is the Catholic Church.

Yes, I understand that’s your belief, however, we don’t find that the RCC has been preserved either in Scripture or the early church. Nowhere does God even so much as hint at a pope or magisterium. Does God preserve His church?..absolutely! Even during the darkest, faithless and most corrupt days, there were always some true believers who were “the church”.

…but as touching the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be instructed and guided by the one true Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.

Scripture is clear that the church has teaching authority, however, it is equally clear that nowhere is a universal jurisdictional interpretive authority implied. And, the simple assertion of being the “one true church” is a far cry from actually offering proof for the claim especially in light of the fact that other denominations make the same claims. We see that for hundreds of years the church did just fine without an infallible pope or magisterium. The Bible teaches that that which is ” theopneustos”(God-breathed) is sufficient to function as the "regula fidei”.

If it be said that Protestant clergy are no less capable of guiding/instructing their flock than Catholic priests theirs, we reply that Protestant clergy do not claim to be authoritative spokesmen of an infallible Church.

Protestant clergy are more capable of guiding their flock than is the RCC if they restrict their instructions to the written Word of God-the only thing God calls inspired. True, they do not claim “infallibility”. This was a doctrine established by your church in modern times however a biblical basis is lacking.

As I already mentioned, the churches who profess and actually practice sola Scriptura have not come “to all manner of contradictory conclusions.” Yes, the possibility of error is always with man – all men, all churches. The historical record is proof enough of this.

There is no biblical evidence that the Lord established any church upon Peter alone especially an “infallible” one. And surely, the RCC is not exempt from “doctrinal and moral chaos”. The church was established upon the prophets and Apostles because it was they who preached the true foundation – the Lord Jesus Christ. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”(Eph 2:20).

As to RCC’s “unity in faith and morals”, isn’t this really just rhetoric? We know there is scholarly division and contradiction with previously declared “infallible” positions with more modern ones. We also know that the early church never taught most of what RCC teaches today.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Coming into the home stretch guys (1000 posts).

 

[PRmerger]

The term “Moses’ seat” most likely refers to the chair from which the Scriptures were read. Their authority would be primarily magisterial, not doctrinal. In Scripture we see Moses acting mainly as “judge” and the priests’ role was maintained over “theology”.

This is absolutely incorrect–Moses did not act “mainly as a judge.”

For was not Moses the Lawgiver?

Not to mention as he is the author of the first 5 books of the Book from whence you claim you get all of your doctrine–it’s curious that you would deny Moses his role having any doctrinal authority.

Incidentally, what is a “magisterial” role but one of teacher?

mag·is·te·ri·al (mj-stîr-l)
adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a master or teacher; authoritative: a magisterial account of the history of the English language.

And what would Moses, having magisterial authority, be *teaching *except the law of God (i.e doctrine)?

 

[Portrait]

The term “Moses’ seat” most likely refers to the chair from which the Scriptures were read. Their authority would be primarily magisterial, not doctrinal. In Scripture we see Moses acting mainly as “judge” and the priests’ role was maintained over “theology”. Dr. Lightfoot explains it this way: ”This is to be understood rather of the legislative seat (or chair), than of the merely doctrinal: and Christ here asserts the authority of the magistrate, and persuadeth to obey him in lawful things"

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your recent replies.

Your explication of “Moses’ seat” is a novel interpretation of this passage of Sacred Scripture and does not accord with even Protestant exegesis. Our Lord does recognize the rightful claims of the scribes, the legal experts, to be exponents of the law and as long as they confine themselves to that task, are to be respected and obeyed, even if the conduct of some of them is inconsistent with their teaching. Thus conservative Anglican commentator, R.V.G. Tasker says, with an additional note on S. Matt. 23: 2, “xxiii. 2 Sit in Moses’ seat, i.e. they are the proper exponents of the Mosaic law. The rabbis sat to teach; hence the metaphorical expression, still current, that speaks of a subject as occupying a professorial 'chair” (Matthew, Tyndale N.T. Commentaries, Tyndale Press 1971, p. 219). Similarly, Catholics teach that their priests also are the rightful exponents of the new law of the Gospel and should therefore be listened to and obeyed.

Contrary to what you say, this passage does have bearing upon the Christian priesthood. The bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church now sit in the seat of the apostles. That is to say, they hold the office which has come down to them from the apostles and are the authorized teachers of faith and morals in Christ’s Church today. Incidently, you will observe from the text how Jesus always upholds appointed offices, however greatly abused or misused - infallibility should never be confused with impeccability.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Nicea325]

Kelman:

Protestant clergy are more capable of guiding their flock than is the RCC if they restrict their instructions to the written Word of God-the only thing God calls inspired. True, they do not claim “infallibility”. This was a doctrine established by your church in modern times however a biblical basis is lacking.

More capable? What evidence do you have to support your claims? Infallibility established in modern times? Uummm…the Trinity was defined and ratified 325 A.D. after Christ…do you consider it modern? Show me the Biblical verse where one Apostle discusses the complexity of the Trintarian doctrine? Do any mention a ratified doctrine? Do you adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the Catholic Church? You are merely picking and choosing what suits your personal agendas…another false characteristic of Protestanism.

As I already mentioned, the churches who profess and actually practice sola Scriptura have not come “to all manner of contradictory conclusions.” Yes, the possibility of error is always with man – all men, all churches. The historical record is proof enough of this.

Bottomline: Sola Scriptura is a “modern” invention founded by your reformers and has no biblical grounds to stand on.

There is no biblical evidence that the Lord established any church upon Peter alone especially an “infallible” one.

WRONG! Apparently you do not read the NT in its entirety. There are 50 NT verses rebuking your claims. If Peter is fallible,then I guess his two epistles are as well-right?

And surely, the RCC is not exempt from “doctrinal and moral chaos”. The church was established upon the prophets and Apostles because it was they who preached the true foundation – the Lord Jesus Christ. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”(Eph 2:20).

Kindly name one doctrinal chaos?

As to RCC’s “unity in faith and morals”, isn’t this really just rhetoric? We know there is scholarly division and contradiction with previously declared “infallible” positions with more modern ones. We also know that the early church never taught most of what RCC teaches today.

The early church never taught what most of the what the RCC teaches today? Okay…then show us where the early church taught denominations,ordination of openly gay clergy,Bible-Alone,dedications versus baptisms,symbolic Eucharist verus Real Presence,etc,etc and the list goes on.