Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks to you both.

Your in a very good congregation, stay there and continue the search for Gods Truth.

John Calvin’s theology of Irresistible Grace is in a word and being polite “false”.

 

[PRmerger]

The passage thus in context of Romans and Paul’s theology, speaks of Jewish and Gentile relations, of both as part of Gods kingdom on earth, neither can boast, the elect will persevere, their sins dealt with on the cross, the glorification assured.

So here’s the thing, Lincs. I happen to disagree with your interpretation of what this passage states.

Now we are at a standstill, right?

You have your interpretation. I have mine. They differ.

In your paradigm, how do we resolve this difference in interpretation?

It is right to fear God, nothing in this is opposed to my theology. I have already addressed Paul’s comments on grafting above.

And here, again, I differ from your opinion. Now, of course one cannot argue that it’s wrong to fear God, but where we differ is what this “fear” refers to. I don’t believe that it refers to “fear of the Lord”. Which, of course, the text does not state. Rather, the text says, “For if God hath not spared the natural branches,** fear** lest perhaps he also spare not thee” which indicates to me that Christians should have fear lest they lose their salvation.

Now where do we go from here?

You are fallible in your interpretation–on that you would agree, yes? (Not meant as a diss–only stating that to which you would agree!)

So why should I follow your interpretation, which you agree could be wrong, and in fact, in your life your interpretations WILL be wrong (for that is what fallible means, right?)

vs an interpretation that has as its guide a paradigm that, in context, it is INFALLIBLE.

 

[PRmerger]

As in Confession, pennance, Eucharist… Rather than the Protestant perspective: one offering of Jesus for all sins, no more propitiatory sacrifice. In the Eucharist instead, a feeding upon Christ, Him offering Himself to us, not us offering Him to the Father.

Regards

Lincs

And yet confession, penance and the Eucharist are all Biblical, right? (John 20, Matt 9, Luke 5, 2 Corinthians, John 6, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians)

So when you disagree with a system for the forgiveness of sins you are objecting to things which are found in the Bible.

Now, to be sure, your interpretations on these texts differ, but then that goes back to why I should follow your FALLIBLE views, vs the views of a Church which has the charism of INFALLIBILITY.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi PRmerger, enjoying our discussion

So here’s the thing, Lincs. I happen to disagree with your interpretation of what this passage states.

Now we are at a standstill, right?

You have your interpretation. I have mine. They differ.

In your paradigm, how do we resolve this difference in interpretation?

Well here are some presuppositions I see in the above:

1. There is no objective meaning discernible in the scriptures
2. There is an infallible authority that can tell us what it means
3. We can understand what the infallible authority (if it exists) means because it’s clearer than scripture.

For me, it’s exegesis, a study of the text in its context; both in the epistle or book and in its historical setting. For you it’s what the church states no?

Has the church infallibly defined this passage? According to this compilation of lists by Catholic Apologists: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc it has not, but they don’t agree on what it has and has not infallibly defined… Anywhere between 7 and 20 something verses, which to me seems to show that the church authority isnt totally clear on what it has or has not said… So yes I am fallible, but so are you when interpreting the magisterium… All this reasoning does is put the question back a step, cause surely we need an infallible guide to understand and correctly interpret the church?

And yet confession, penance and the Eucharist are all Biblical, right? (John 20, Matt 9, Luke 5, 2 Corinthians, John 6, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians)

I happily affirm the Eucharist, but not in the propitiatory sacrifice way Rome does. Confession I’m ok with too, not in the way The Catholic Church sees it mind you… see an overview of Calvin i found here: oliveplants.com/boydswebpage/Notes%20on%20Calvin’s%20Institutes/Class%2018%20-%20Private%20Confession%20of%20Sin.pdf Penance I don’t see as making any sort of satisfaction for sins.

Now, to be sure, your interpretations on these texts differ, but then that goes back to why I should follow your FALLIBLE views, vs the views of a Church which has the charism of INFALLIBILITY.

I think I gave my answer in the paragraph above…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger, enjoying our discussion

Indeed. And a blessed Sunday, the Lord’s Day, to you!

Well here are some presuppositions I see in the above:

1. There is no objective meaning discernible in the scriptures

This is an absolutely true statement. The existence of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their own interpretations of Scripture, each coming to different–and sometimes CONTRARY!–interpretations, speaks to this.

1. There is an infallible authority that can tell us what it means

We can discuss this, if you wish.

But without an infallible authority we are left with the chaos and confusion of these tens of thousands of different interpretations, each claiming that the Holy Spirit has guided THEM to their position.

Now, thanks to what Luther has wrought, even with the very simple statement of St. Peter that baptism now saves, Christians are unsure whether it’s
-an ordinance or a sacrament
-done as an infant or only as an adult
-done by immersion or sprinkling
-done in a river or in a font
-in Jesus’ name only or using the Trinitarian formula

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting PR, did not Calvin base his own salvation on his baptism thus the “works” of his parents. Contrary to his teachings btw.

Romans 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

This is an absolutely true statement. The existence of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming their own interpretations of Scripture, each coming to different–and sometimes CONTRARY!–interpretations, speaks to this.

Note that all of them are sure that Rome has erred on fundamental points however… I’m also sorry but the thousands number isn’t all that true… Anglican, Baptist, Methodist etc, hardly thousands…

We can discuss this, if you wish.

But without an infallible authority we are left with the chaos and confusion of these tens of thousands of different interpretations, each claiming that the Holy Spirit has guided THEM to their position.

Now, thanks to what Luther has wrought, even with the very simple statement of St. Peter that baptism now saves, Christians are unsure whether it’s
-an ordinance or a sacrament
-done as an infant or only as an adult
-done by immersion or sprinkling
-done in a river or in a font
-in Jesus’ name only or using the Trinitarian formula

So we exegete. Plus we do have an infallible authority: the scriptures. I know the argument you’re presenting, but it doesn’t really hold water… As I’ve shown the magisterium itself is hard to grasp, even top Catholic Apologists seem to be in disagreement over if it’s defined something or not and the numbers of verses were talking is rather small anyway, less than 30… Furthermore considering that what you have to believe to be in the church can change overnight if a new dogma is proclaimed, it seems Rome is just as fluid.

I think Hebrews is clear on what it means to say about the sacrifice of Christ, as is rest of the New Testament… The argument by bringing up private interpretation sort of ends discussion, as you also have to use It to conclude that Rome is the true church…

It’s a question of authority, scripture alone… Or church alone.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a question of authority, scripture alone… Or church alone.

Regards

Lincs.

Never Church alone, Lincs.

As with most Catholic answers, we don’t subscribe to either/or but both/and.

Anyway, off to Mass with the fam. Will return shortly and maybe I’ll have time to discuss more today!

As far as infallibility, one question I want to ask you is this: if you don’t believe that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility then where do you think she erred in discerning the canon of Scripture? Do you believe that, say, Revelations should have been excluded and, say, the Didache included?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lincs is the Reformed congregation you are in, a strict following of TULIP? You’ll have to exuse me as you may have linked this. Unfortunately I have made the usual mistake of being involved in a few threads.

I’m sorry for other’s let me explain TULIP. My mistake.

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs is the Reformed congregation you are in, a strict following of TULIP? You’ll have to exuse me as you may have linked this. Unfortunately I have made the usual mistake of being involved in a few threads.

I’m sorry for other’s let me explain TULIP. My mistake.

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

Hi Gary, no need for any sort of apologies

Here is the website: newfrontierstogether.org/
The site with more theology on it (the above one is the intro type site): whatyouthinkmatters.org/

There is a rather strong admiration for the institutes by Calvin…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

As far as infallibility, one question I want to ask you is this: if you don’t believe that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility then where do you think she erred in discerning the canon of Scripture? Do you believe that, say, Revelations should have been excluded and, say, the Didache included?

I don’t subscribe to the view that the canon was utterly unknown until it was decided by the church, im sure there are some posts between me and Gary on this earlier in the thread…

Ratehr the canon is ‘received’ or ‘discerned’, the books of scripture are authoritative as they are the word of God, not because the church declares them to be. To save this from going into a sola scriptura debate I will simply post this: crossway.org/books/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-tpb/ The book gives a great treatise in canon development and points out it was known a lot earlier than dates often thrown about…

Forgive my weariness in this, I’ve long learnt that sola scriptura debates go on for a lonnnngggg time here it’s more beneficial to all to read each others recommendations IMHO…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lincs.

OK I see the articles now which I have to spend some time with in all fairness. I see the morph from strict Calvin though.

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

You have your interpretation. I have mine. They differ.

In your paradigm, how do we resolve this difference in interpretation?

If you wouldn’t mind addressing this question, Lincs?

What is the answer to how 2 Christians reconcile 2 very different interpretations of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Has the church infallibly defined this passage? According to this compilation of lists by Catholic Apologists: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc it has not,

You are correct in that the Church has only infallibly defined a few verses in Scripture. However, if you read my post I used the phrase “in context” in discussing infallibility.

What I meant by that is that we must always interpret Scriptures in the context of the Faith that gave us the Scriptures–and it is in that that we have the assurance of infallibility. Not with each specific verse.

but they don’t agree on what it has and has not infallibly defined… Anywhere between 7 and 20 something verses, which to me seems to show that the church authority isnt totally clear on what it has or has not said…

Well, the Church does not take each verse, line by line, and interpret, so you are correct in this.

But I am uncertain how this applies to our discussion here. We understand that each and every verse, and our personal interpretation of such, cannot contradict the kerygma. Thus, while the Church has not infallibly defined the verses we’re discussing, it HAS infallibly defined and proclaimed our soteriology, so I don’t see a problem here. You have a fallible interpretation. We have an infallible one.

 

[PRmerger]

Confession I’m ok with too, not in the way The Catholic Church sees it mind you… see an overview of Calvin i found here: oliveplants.com/boydswebpage/Notes%20on%20Calvin’s%20Institutes/Class%2018%20-%20Private%20Confession%20of%20Sin.pdf

I am very interested in how you see confession in light of John 20. I didn’t notice in the article you cited the author making any reference to John 20.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,
Note that all of them are sure that Rome has erred on fundamental points however…

On this, we are agreed! And they are agreed. But it’s not based on the same interpretations of Scripture is it?

I’m also sorry but the thousands number isn’t all that true… Anglican, Baptist, Methodist etc, hardly thousands…

Could you tell me, then, how many Christian denominations there actually are (and please cite your source.)

 

[Lincoln7]

If you wouldn’t mind addressing this question, Lincs?

What is the answer to how 2 Christians reconcile 2 very different interpretations of Scripture?

They exegete the text to discern the conclusion.

I have already stated when it comes to scriptural interpretation, the magisterium appears to do that very rarely, If for example we disagree on Romans 11 as we did earlier, can we ask the church what the true meaning is? I don’t think they have put out any infallible interpretation of it…

My other response would be; how does one know that Rome is the true church which can give you this interpretation? Seems there are other bodies that also claim this infallibility.

Regards, with respect

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

To avoid confusion, as there are several posts I haven’t answered of yours yet, would you like me to give an answer to them before you answer my last post? Just want this to remain a clear and non heated thread!

 

[PRmerger]

Furthermore considering that what you have to believe to be in the church can change overnight if a new dogma is proclaimed, it seems Rome is just as fluid

Not sure what you mean here. What teaching has changed? (I’ll take the “overnight” to be a hyperbole here.)

And I think that you are mistaken in maintaining that the Church has ever had a “new” dogma. If a dogma is defined that doesn’t mean that it’s “new”. Take, for example, the Trinity. When was it defined? Does that mean that it wasn’t believed from the earliest days of Christianity?

 

[PRmerger]

To avoid confusion, as there are several posts I haven’t answered of yours yet, would you like me to give an answer to them before you answer my last post? Just want this to remain a clear and non heated thread!

Answer when you can, and I’ll answer when I can!