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

[jmcrae]

Are you really serious the cc teaches that? That is totally beyond the pale to think something Jesus called, used and defined as scripture was not until 550 years later.

Jesus used a 46-book Bible, which the Catholic Church has also always continued to use.

The Church defined and closed the canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent because the Protestants were disputing it and arguing about it. Prior to that, there was no need to define it, because nobody was really arguing against it very much.

 

[gerhardc]

Is it my simple mind you have a problem with or you inability to explain this in a simple way?

(Ephesians 1:16-17): “I pray for you constantly, asking God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give you spiritual wisdom and insight so that you might grow in your knowledge of God.”

You can pray this prayer for yourself if you really do wish not to rely on your intellect but on spirirual understanding from God instead. That’s only if you want to.

 

[jmcrae]

The first time? What about Jerome and Eusebius? What about Cardinal Cajetan? The DC’s and the disputed books of the NT have always been just that; disputed, long before Luther.

Jon

If you look at St. Jerome’s Bible, you will see that he gave us a 46-book Old Testament, with the books all in the correct order. He did not separate them out or make them “different” in any way. He questioned them at first because of different information coming from the Palestinian Jews, but when he realized the teaching of the Church and the Tradition of the Apostles, he followed the Church.

I don’t know about the other two, but it would seem that their disagreement was insufficient to cause any difficulty for them in following the Church.

There are things that I privately disagree with, as well, but I put aside my personal opinions when working in an official capacity, and I follow and teach what the Church teaches on those issues. I can do that because it’s not a life-or-death situation, for me - my opinion isn’t more important to me than the Eucharist, in those particular cases.

Luther’s disagreements with the Church were, in fact, more important to him than the Eucharist, which is why he allowed himself to become excommunicated for them - thus, it was a “serious disagreement” and needed to be resolved and defined.

 

[CopticChristian]

(Ephesians 1:16-17): “I pray for you constantly, asking God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give you spiritual wisdom and insight so that you might grow in your knowledge of God.”

You can pray this prayer for yourself if you really do wish not to rely on your intellect but on spirirual understanding from God instead. That’s only if you want to.

OK, now I prayed that prayer and then read Ephesians…and here’s what I got…

15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Paul was praying for the Gentiles. I was never a Gentile, I was baptized and made Christian as a baby however I understand his point of view.

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Gentiles again, kind of like in Romans.

1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Something was revealed to Paul and now he is gonna tell us, cause he has some knowledge we should have…

9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him

The mystery, Church, all people are gonna be part of Christ by the Church and God is gonna let us know his wisdom through the Church…

The mystery is about fellowship, ok, yeah Church wow…

16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Knowledge is important, the love of Christ is better…but you have to have knowledge of this mystery…

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all

One Lord, Faith, Baptism…OK gotta get baptized, have one belief,

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; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

gotta have the right doctrine, men decieve…they even wait to do it…

6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

words decieve…

And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Paul wants us to pray for his ability to preach this mystery and I would bet he would expect anyone that understands this mystery, since he told us to speak it boldly too…

This prayer worked wonders.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If you look at St. Jerome’s Bible, you will see that he gave us a 46-book Old Testament, with the books all in the correct order. He did not separate them out or make them “different” in any way. He questioned them at first because of different information coming from the Palestinian Jews, but when he realized the teaching of the Church and the Tradition of the Apostles, he followed the Church.

.

Good morning,

I do not believe the bolded section of your post is accurate. Jerome included his prefaces to the deutero’s in the Vulgate which clearly expressed his opinion that the books were not on par with canonical scripture.

From newadvent.org
The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.

But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage. For the Spanish Church valuable testimony is found in the work of the heretic Priscillian, “Liber de Fide et Apocryphis”; it supposes a sharp line existing between canonical and uncanonical works, and that the Canon takes in all the deuteros.

The canon of the Old Testament from the middle of the fifth to the close of the seventh century

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others–a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage.

I’m not so sure the deuterocanonical issue is as clear cut as you portray it in your above post. If Jerome submitted to the authority of the Church than you have to believe that the Church apporved him including his prologues or so it seems to me.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;8470380]If you look at St. Jerome’s Bible, you will see that he gave us a 46-book Old Testament, with the books all in the correct order. He did not separate them out or make them “different” in any way. He questioned them at first because of different information coming from the Palestinian Jews, but when he realized the teaching of the Church and the Tradition of the Apostles, he followed the Church.

In the correct order. Is the order in which they appear somehow dogmatically defined?
While Luther didn’t have to, he followed the practice of the western Church (Orthodoxy has a different canon), as well.

I don’t know about the other two, but it would seem that their disagreement was insufficient to cause any difficulty for them in following the Church.

Luther’s position on the canon was not the reason for his excommunication, that I’m aware of. He was excommunicated prior to translating.

There are things that I privately disagree with, as well, but I put aside my personal opinions when working in an official capacity, and I follow and teach what the Church teaches on those issues. I can do that because it’s not a life-or-death situation, for me - my opinion isn’t more important to me than the Eucharist, in those particular cases.

Luther’s disagreements with the Church were, in fact, more important to him than the Eucharist, which is why he allowed himself to become excommunicated for them - thus, it was a “serious disagreement” and needed to be resolved and defined

Why are you assuming that the Eucharist was not important to Luther? It was incredibly important to him, just as it is to me.

Jon

 

[gerhardc]

OK, now I prayed that prayer …
This prayer worked wonders.

(Ephesians 1:16-17) - "I pray for you constantly, asking God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give you spiritual wisdom and insight so that you might grow in your knowledge of God.

The operative words are “pray”, “constantly” (for) “spiritual” (wisdom and understanding).“Spiritual”, meaning not academic, man-made or historic.

 

[CopticChristian]

(Ephesians 1:16-17) - "I pray for you constantly, asking God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give you spiritual wisdom and insight so that you might grow in your knowledge of God.

The operative words are “pray”, “constantly” (for) “spiritual” (wisdom and understanding).“Spiritual”, meaning not academic, man-made or historic.

Now 3 questions.

1. Did I miss not academic, man made or historic…? I did not see that in the writings?
2. Man made? Jesus was a man, God/man and made all things including history, academia did He not?
3. Are you providing me a meaning to what you read, in other words your interpretation or teaching? For if you are then you realize as you read this that when someone reads something it means something to me and something else to you…You have to concede that reading something requires teaching by someone else…

You added words…Paul warned me in this letter as you can see

That I should be wary of …

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;

and you have proposed a doctrine of Biblical self authentication…as yet you have provided me no evidence of this doctrine…

6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Now I have no idea where your words came from, where they are going and so I reserve judgement on whether or not your words are vain…

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[gerhardc]

Now 3 questions.

1. Did I miss not academic, man made or historic…? I did not see that in the writings?
2. Man made? Jesus was a man, God/man and made all things including history, academia did He not?
3. Are you providing me a meaning to what you read, in other words your interpretation or teaching? For if you are then you realize as you read this that when someone reads something it means something to me and something else to you…You have to concede that reading something requires teaching by someone else…

You added words…Paul warned me in this letter as you can see

That I should be wary of …

and you have proposed a doctrine of Biblical self authentication…as yet you have provided me no evidence of this doctrine…

Now I have no idea where your words came from, where they are going and so I reserve judgement on whether or not your words are vain…

Thank you:thumbsup:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6). If you wish to seek the understanding of the flesh, then, of course, you may.

 

[CopticChristian]

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6). ]If you wish to seek the understanding of the flesh, then, of course, you may

.

1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Now what you quoted from was the dialogue Jesus and Nicodemus had about the necessity of Baptism and how you are born again in Baptism. Your added words are not part ot what I read so I can only assume that as you see this passage you only focus on the natural birth, flesh, and not the spiritual rebirth that Jesus is talking about. Is that correct?

 

[gerhardc]

Now what you quoted from was the dialogue Jesus and Nicodemus had about the necessity of Baptism and how you are born again in Baptism. Your added words are not part ot what I read so I can only assume that as you see this passage you only focus on the natural birth, flesh, and not the spiritual rebirth that Jesus is talking about. Is that correct?

Have a look at the posts and come to realise that a distinction is being made between that which is *spiritual *and that which is *natural *(refer John 3:6). From Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian Church, the encouragement to you is to ask for and pursue *spiritual *wisdom and understanding. In plain language, Paul is not praying for wisdom that comes from men or history or academics but he is praying for wisdom that comes from God. You can do the same for yourself, if you *really *wish to have it (refer James 1:5-7). If your pursuit is for natural wisdom through academics and/or history (that which originates from man or man’s recollection/perception of what happened in the past) you will not receive spiritual wisdom (that which originates from God, that which is true). In our pursuit of spiritual wisdom we pursue the words which we are sure have been spoken through the Spirit of God. Thus, we pursue the word of God - that which we are sure has been inspired by the Spirit of God.

All the best with your pursuit should you wish to follow through.

 

[CopticChristian]

Have a look at the posts and come to realise that a distinction is being made between that which is *spiritual *and that which is *natural *(refer John 3:6). From Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian Church, the encouragement to you is to ask for and pursue *spiritual *wisdom and understanding. In plain language, Paul is not praying for wisdom that comes from men or history or academics but he is praying for wisdom that comes from God. You can do the same for yourself, if you *really *wish to have it (refer James 1:5-7). If your pursuit is for natural wisdom through academics and/or history (that which originates from man or man’s recollection/perception of what happened in the past) you will not receive spiritual wisdom (that which originates from God, that which is true). In our pursuit of spiritual wisdom we pursue the words which we are sure have been spoken through the Spirit of God. Thus, we pursue the word of God - that which we are sure has been inspired by the Spirit of God.All the best with your pursuit should you wish to follow through.

And I ask again how is it you know that the word of God is inspired by the Spirit of God?

 

[gerhardc]

And I ask again how is it you know that the word of God is inspired by the Spirit of God?

To know this answer you have to be born again. Don’t be scared of the term “born again”. Unfortunately some have abused. Still, it does not make the truth behind it invalid. **Not **being born of the Spirit (refer John 3:6) means you have **not **received a renewed spirit. It means that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God (refer John 3:5) where the Spirit is the one witnessing to your spirit (refer Romans 8:16). Thus, first, you have to be born again: *"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” *(John 3:3). You say that the being “born again” which Jesus speaks about here happens at water Baptism (as an infant or otherwise) (and nothing is required from you prior to that moment except being present), … why don’t you sincerely pray for spiritual wisdom and understanding in the knowledge of Him believing in your heart that you will receive it (refer James 1:5-6) and see what happens? If you are *really *seeking to know what the word of God is then you will seek the wisdom of God through prayer. He will show you.

 

[CopticChristian]

To know this answer you have to be born again. Don’t be scared of the term “born again”. Unfortunately some have abused. Still, it does not make the truth behind it invalid. **Not **being born of the Spirit (refer John 3:6) means you have **not **received a renewed spirit. It means that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God (refer John 3:5) where the Spirit is the one witnessing to your spirit (refer Romans 8:16). Thus, first, you have to be born again: *"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” *(John 3:3). You say that the being “born again” which Jesus speaks about here happens at water Baptism (as an infant or otherwise) (and nothing is required from you prior to that moment except being present), … why don’t you sincerely pray for spiritual wisdom and understanding in the knowledge of Him believing in your heart that you will receive it (refer James 1:5-6) and see what happens? If you are *really *seeking to know what the word of God is then you will seek the wisdom of God through prayer. He will show you.

You have stated that to know what Scripture is you must be born again, something I am to have no fear of, and some have abused it.

You restate my explanation and add “nothing is required” suggesting that you believe that something is required. Lets try consent. I believe that consent is required. Now since parents often consent for their children, like vaccines and the like to protect them, parents consent for their children to be baptized.

So lets do this. Tell me your understanding of what it is to be born again and then tell me who has abused this notion and how.

You still have not told me how you Know Scripture is Scripture and how it is self authenticating.

 

[gerhardc]

You have stated that to know what Scripture is you must be born again, something I am to have no fear of, and some have abused it.

You restate my explanation and add “nothing is required” suggesting that you believe that something is required. Lets try consent. I believe that consent is required. Now since parents often consent for their children, like vaccines and the like to protect them, parents consent for their children to be baptized.

So lets do this. Tell me your understanding of what it is to be born again and then tell me who has abused this notion and how.

Repent (refer John the Baptist), accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior by believing this in your heart and confessing with your mouth (refer Romans 10:9-10). Baptism completes the processes as you die to self and live to Christ. If you have done this as an infant you were born again.

Abuse “born again”: some Charismatics have preached faith without repentance, which has brought about ‘false salvations’ resulting in fruit contrary to the character of the Spirit. Others have abused it by denying the need to be born again.

 

[CopticChristian]

Repent (refer John the Baptist), accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior by believing this in your heart and confessing with your mouth (refer Romans 10:9-10). Baptism completes the processes as you die to self and live to Christ. If you have done this as an infant you were born again.

Abuse “born again”: some Charismatics have preached faith without repentance, which has brought about ‘false salvations’ resulting in fruit contrary to the character of the Spirit. Others have abused it by denying the need to be born again.

Repent, John The Baptist. Are you a Baptist?

Concerning Romans, you misappropriate the meaning of Romans…Paul is quoting the Old Testament, he is actually quoting the song of Moses to tell the people that they are hard hearted and did not listen to Moses and Paul is reminding them that as he speaks to them they should see him as a type of Moses.

0If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

You may want to spend some time reading Deuterotomy and see what Paul is doing is quoting Moses.

11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul was concluding his diatribe against the Judaizing Christians. Go back and look at the introduction to Romans…He is writing to Christians with mutual Faith…this is not a letter as to how to get “saved” whatever that means in Protestant Jargon.

7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me

It would make no sense for Paul to put some notion of how to get saved if he was writing to those of mutual faith. If the letter is to those of mutual faith, why wait until the 10th chapter to tell them how to get saved?

He is writing to Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians and Judiazing Christians trying to impose the Old Covenant through Circumcision…Romans 6 get Baptized, Romans 7 the Old Covenant is dead…Romans 8 the Holy Spirit…

Now in Romans 10 he is pointing out that as Moses said the Jews were stiff necked and failed to listen to Moses and they are faililing to listen to Paul if they continue in this Old Covenant imposition.

5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Agreed and Paul makes the point that Baptism is how you get in on the action Jew, Gentile, Barbarian…not Circumcision.

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin.

I wonder who teaches Protestants this notion that when Paul says confess with your lips that it is a formula for salvation…read it again in context and compare that to Moses. This confessing for salvation and the sinners prayer is nonsense.

Where do you find this notion to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior…?

 

[gerhardc]

Repent, John The Baptist. Are you a Baptist?

Concerning Romans, you misappropriate the meaning of Romans…Paul is quoting the Old Testament, he is actually quoting the song of Moses to tell the people that they are hard hearted and did not listen to Moses and Paul is reminding them that as he speaks to them they should see him as a type of Moses.

0If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

You may want to spend some time reading Deuterotomy and see what Paul is doing is quoting Moses.

Paul was concluding his diatribe against the Judaizing Christians. Go back and look at the introduction to Romans…He is writing to Christians with mutual Faith…this is not a letter as to how to get “saved” whatever that means in Protestant Jargon.

It would make no sense for Paul to put some notion of how to get saved if he was writing to those of mutual faith. If the letter is to those of mutual faith, why wait until the 10th chapter to tell them how to get saved?

He is writing to Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians and Judiazing Christians trying to impose the Old Covenant through Circumcision…Romans 6 get Baptized, Romans 7 the Old Covenant is dead…Romans 8 the Holy Spirit…

Now in Romans 10 he is pointing out that as Moses said the Jews were stiff necked and failed to listen to Moses and they are faililing to listen to Paul if they continue in this Old Covenant imposition.

Agreed and Paul makes the point that Baptism is how you get in on the action Jew, Gentile, Barbarian…not Circumcision.

I wonder who teaches Protestants this notion that when Paul says confess with your lips that it is a formula for salvation…read it again in context and compare that to Moses. This confessing for salvation and the sinners prayer is nonsense.

Where do you find this notion to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior…?

So, you’re not going to pray for spirirual wisdom and understanding then Coptic. Okay.

 

[CopticChristian]

So, you’re not going to pray for spirirual wisdom and understanding then Coptic. Okay.

You are impudent, unknowing, sarcastic, ignorant, and insulting. I prayed all day for spiritual wisdom and understanding. How in the world do you believe I was able to explain a proper understanding of the book of Romans concerning your throwing out one verse as to confessing with your lips.

You wrongly, falsely, protest that because you do not get the desired result that the Holy Spirit cannot do what it is you want the Holy Spirit to do. Is this how the Holy Spirit works for you in Protestant circles. When you do not give your instructor the answer they want after reading they protest that you do not have spiritual wisdom and understanding?

This is how John Chrysosotom, somwhere between 347 and 407 saw confessing with your lips saw it. He was closer to the Epistle in time than you or I were…he sees it kind of my way.

What he means is this. Moses shows us the righteousness ensuing from the Law, what sort it is of, and whence. What sort is it then of, and what does it consist in? In fulfilling the commandments. “He (R.T. the man), that does these things,” He says, “shall live by (or in), them.” Leviticus 18:5 And there is no other way of becoming righteous in the Law save by fulfilling the whole of it. But this has not been possible for any one, and therefore this righteousness has failed them. (διαπέπτωκεν). But tell us, Paul, of the other righteousness also, that which is of grace. What is that then, and of what does it consist? Hear the words in which he gives a clear sketch of it. For after he had refuted the other, he next goes on to this, and says,

Ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in your heart, Who shall ascend into heaven (that is, to bring Christ down from above): or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what says it? The word is near you, even in your mouth, and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach. That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

To prevent the Jews then from saying, How came they who had not found the lesser righteousness to find the greater? He gives a reason there was no answering, that this way was easier than that. For that requires the fulfilment of all things (for when you do all, then you shall live); but the righteousness which is of faith does not say this, but what?

 

[jmcrae]

Why are you assuming that the Eucharist was not important to Luther? It was incredibly important to him, just as it is to me.

Jon

Then why not remain (or become) joined with the only One. Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on this earth whose priests can give it to you?

 

[CopticChristian]

So, you’re not going to pray for spirirual wisdom and understanding then Coptic. Okay.

How do you think I was able to decipher the letter of Paul to the Romans…without spiritual wisdom and guidance?