Reformed debate (long! please help!)

[paperclip]

Hi all,

I recently married into a protestant family (my husband is converting to catholicism) and I’ve found myself sucked into a facebook debate with my brother in law. I’d appreciate help with refuting his (very long) treatise - it follows below! Thanks so much for your help…

---

1. Gifts or Graces in the Church

We believe according to I Corinthians 12 that every believer is a member of Christ’s body, and as such all are given gifts/graces (charismata) of the Spirit. As the members of a body, each part is necessary, and no part can say to the other that it is unnecessary or unimportant. And those parts which seem less honourable, God has given more abundant honour. We agree that Mary was blessed among women, but so are all women who are saved from damnation. However, Jael who slew the enemy of God’s people, Sisera, with a tent-peg driven through the temple was blessed above women (Judges 5:24). Other passages which speak of how all members of the body are given gifts are Romans 12:3-8; this explains how different members have different gifts and none should think more highly than he ought of himself (warning against pride), but that our gifts lay upon us responsibility to exercise them. Some gifts are common to all members (faith, hope, and charity, for example, and the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23), yet still in differing measure. The best gift is charity (I Corinthians 13). The miraculous gifts have ceased, because their purpose was to confirm the ministry of the apostles (II Corinthians 12:12), which are in the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). A foundation is laid once, and then built upon. Therefore we reject the claims of the Roman see to be an apostolic successor, since that would mean the foundation was still being laid. Ephesians 4:7-12 also speaks specifically about the gifts of the teaching ministry poured out on the church. The “evangelists” (some of whom wrote New Testament Scripture) were co-workers with the apostles and had miraculous gifts including prophecy (according to the letters to Timothy and Titus, as well as the references in Acts), so we conclude that they too with the apostles and prophets are in the foundation. This leaves the continuing gifts of pastor-teachers only present in the church today. And so we call our minister a teaching Pastor, or a Teaching Elder/Bishop. As we have one continuing teaching office, we have one continuing ruling office, that of elder or bishop or overseer. This is the only conclusion from Titus 1:5-7 which instructs Titus to appoint “elders” (presbyters), and then in giving their required qualifications, calls them also “bishops” (episcopos). Also in Acts 20, Paul calls the “elders” of Ephesus (v.17), and later calls them by the name “overseers” (v. 28).

1a. Saints

Paul begins Ephesians (as most letters to the churches) by addressing the saints (literally, the “holy”) at Ephesus, and the faithful (literally, “believing”, e.g. contrasted with “faithless” in the admonition to believe given to doubting Thomas, John 20:27) in Christ Jesus. But these are not two distinct groups of people, he is using the conjunction “kai” in the cumulative sense rather than a mere copulative, such as I might address my wife and my beloved (who are one and the same person!). And this is proven by the following context: Addressing these saints/holy and faithful/believing, the Holy Spirit declares that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. These include: that we are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him, that in love God has predestinated us to be adopted as His children through Jesus Christ, that we are accepted in the beloved, that we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, that the mystery of His will has been made known to us, that we have obtained an inheritance in Christ, and that we have already received the earnest of this inheritance which is the seal of the Holy Spirit of promise. And all this is according to the good pleasure of God’s will which He purposed in Himself before the foundation of the world, to the praise of the glory of His grace. It is clear that in all these blessings, there is no distinction within the church in Christ. But especially note verse 4, where Paul says to the “saints” and the “faithful” that we have been chosen that we should be “holy” which is the same word used for “saints” in verse 1. More arguments can be given. Romans 1:7 addresses the church in Rome and calls them “saints”. Furthermore, in chapter 8, when speaking about the Holy Spirit who makes intercession for all of us who have the Spirit who are in Christ and believe, it says that He makes intercession for the “saints”. I Corinthians 1:2 addresses the church at Corinth and calls them all sanctified in Christ Jesus, and “saints” along with everyone who calls upon the name of Christ. Examples could be multiplied, but this suffices to show that every believer is a saint, a holy one of God.

.----------------------

 

[paperclip]

Sadly that wasn’t the whole thing…

1b. Mary

It is simply not true that Rome only desires to show Mary the respect and honour that she deserves. Consider how the men of Lycaonia tried to show Barnabas and Paul the honour which they thought they deserved by attempting to offer sacrifice as if they were pagan gods. When Paul and Barnabas heard of it, they tore their clothes and ran among the people saying “Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein” (Acts 14:15). And consider the angel who brought signified visions to John, whom in his awe he fell down in prostration (“worship”), “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Revelation 22:9). But these things are less than what Rome attempts to offer Mary, yet claiming that it is not “worship”. Their claim is false, because they ascribe to her names, attributes, and offices which belong only to the true and living God. For example, they teach that she is a co-mediatrix (among other blasphemous titles), but Christ alone is the only Mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5). They pray to Mary (and other mere creatures, including departed souls, and angels). But that to which you pray is your god. Prayer can only be directly rightly to God therefore. And this must be because prayer necessarily ascribes various divine attributes. Prayer to Mary ascribes to her divine omniscience to receive all such prayers, even unspoken ones, simultaneously from millions. It also ascribes divine omnipotence to answer such prayers. These are attributes which may only be ascribed to God. Furthermore, God has forbidden and made impossible any contact with the dead (Deut. 18:10-12). A necromancer is one who communicates with the dead. If Rome will claim, “Aha, but we don’t claim to get messages back.” First of all, that is false, because there are innumerable claims of people receiving messages from Mary, other saints, and angels. And secondly, it is still necromancy even without receiving any message back. Saul tried to pray to Samuel, and you see what judgment he received (I Samuel 28:11-20). Furthermore, this denies all this is, as Deuteronomy describes (and I’m not trying to be insulting), an abomination because it denies the place of God as the one to whom we should bring all our requests and petitions. Isaiah 8:19-20 draws this truth out. He condemns the living for seeking to the dead instead of to their God. And the way he prescribes that they should seek to God is to His law and testimony, telling us that whoever does not speak according to God’s word, has no light in them. Scripture teaches us how we should pray, especially when Christ was asked this, he taught that our prayers must be directed towards our Father in heaven. Furthermore, our prayers must be according to the will of God only, and since we pray according to God’s will only, we must pray with the full assurance of faith, since we believe that God is faithful and works all things for our good (Romans 8:28; Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 4:14-16; James 1:5-8). Finally, our ancient creed of Chalcedon, deliberately, wisely, and reverently, does not call Mary simply the “mother of God”. It was because of the blasphemous abuse of this title that the controversy arose within the church which produced this creed. Instead, the creed carefully qualifies it, “mother of God, according to the manhood”. Mary was not the mother of Christ according to the least part of His divine nature. And as for the “Immaculate Conception” such a doctrine was unknown in the early church, and many of the early fathers specifically referred to Mary as a sinner, Tertullian, Athanasius, Crysostom, to name a few. And this can be proven clearly not only from her own words (Luke 1:47-48), or from her conduct and Christ’s teaching (Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27-28), but also from the doctrine of original sin and total depravity which applies to all under the headship of Adam (Romans 5:12-21). When the Holy Spirit teaches in Romans 3:12 by quoting the Old Testament, “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one,” it does not make an exception for Mary. Christ is alone excepted, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, so that His sinlessness and divinity can only be properly ascribed to God (Hebrews 2:16-18; 4:15).

 

[paperclip]

1. Grace by the Sacraments

I think I perfectly understand “ex opere operato”. The Roman doctrine is that God ALWAYS works grace in the sacraments such that every recipient receives grace by them. Yet, the disposition of the recipient can resist this grace (or the fruit of it). This is why they claim that every baby baptised is regenerated, since they can’t conceive of a baby resisting the sacramental grace in that case. This is exactly the same view as many who claim to be “Reformed” who teach a conditional covenant according to a theology they call the “Federal Vision”. Many of these, for the sake of consistency have already crossed the Tiber back to Rome. But the Reformed faith utterly rejects the idea of “resistible grace”. We agree that people try to resist the power of God, but they cannot do so effectually/successfully. If God wills to confer grace to a person, such that they bear gracious fruit, it will be done. We believe, according to our earliest creed, that God is Almighty. “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Psalm 115:3). So we believe that God is gracious only ever to the elect. If a reprobate hears the preaching or receives a sacrament, God does not give or offer him any grace thereby. Instead God works through that preaching or sacrament a curse, hardening of heart, and condemnation. But with the elect, God uses the preaching to work faith in our hearts, and He strengthens that faith by means of the sacraments. This is why I said, only those who have faith can benefit from the sacraments. But this is the faith which God supplies by His irresistible grace. We believe that we need irresistible grace because we know that by nature there is no good thing in us since the Fall of Adam. That is why we say that Rome’s teaching of resistible grace and her teaching on “free-will” is a denial of the Fall. So, we are back to the key point of difference, the hinge on which all turns.

2a. Sin and Justice

Rome denies God’s infinite holiness and justice when it claims that God’s mercy can allow Him to neglect these. The same claim is made by all religions which deny Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the only basis for the forgiveness of sins (e.g. Islam). God’s mercy, like all of His attributes (e.g. love, grace, goodness), is one with all His other attributes. His perfect mercy is also perfectly just and holy. He is not more merciful than He is just, or more loving than He is holy. He is perfectly and completely, in simplicity, all His divine attributes. So, He cannot and will not, according to His justice because He cannot deny Himself, punish any sin with anything less than eternal torment in hell. And this is why, when the eternal state of the wicked in hell is described, it says (Revelation 21:8; cf. 21:27; 22:15), “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” But it is also not true that anyone will be condemned for simply a lie. Our whole nature has become totally depraved since the Fall, so that even if we do not do every concievable sin (on account of external restraints such as fear of punishment, societal pressure, self-righteous pride, seeking the praise of men), we are still inclined to all wickedness, and given the right circumstances actually do it too (Romans 3:10-20). All are guilty before God, and liable to the punishment of eternal torment in hell (“the second death”). Matthew 25 also describes the judgement of Christ on the Last Day and makes perfectly clear that the punishment will be “everlasting” (v. 46). He also makes clear that Christ first divides the entire human race into sheep and goats, and mentions their works not as the legal basis for their eternal destination, but as public evidence (since God causes His sinful sheep to begin to bear godly fruit in this life). And the sheep, so conscious of their sins and unworthiness, think that they have not done such godly works, whereas the wicked goats think they have not neglected them. So, Rome not only denies God’s justice here, but it also denies the corruption of man, and the sinfulness of sin.

 

[paperclip]

2b. The Forgiveness of Sins and Merit

Considering the immutability of God’s justice therefore, man cannot make any satisfaction for his sins, for at least two reasons. First of all, God demands a perfect life of obedience. But we have all sinned. And even our best works are still corrupted by our sin (Isa. 64:6). This means that we are in debt to the legal demands of God’s justice. It matters not on this account that God is merciful, for He cannot and will not corrupt His justice for the sake of His mercy, just as He will not compromise His mercy for the sake of His justice. Yet how can we earn with God? Rome teaches that we can merit to our account not only to pay for our active disobedience, but also to pay for the obedience which we did not render to God. The claim is made that this merit is not something which God has to give by right, but that He just graciously chooses to do so, by counting our unworthy gifts as worthy of greater value, such that He can even consider certain sinful works as works of supererogation. The Reformed faith rejects this as, again, totally contrary to the justice of God. God cannot, and will not count anything as more worthy than it actually is. He is just. So, it is not like asking your father for money to buy him a present. If we use God’s money to buy Him a present, that earns us nothing. The analogy is totally flawed to begin with, because a father only counts such a present as valuable because it comes from his son. Yet since the Fall, we are no longer children of God by nature, we are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) and children of the devil (John 8:44-47), and this is why our salvation necessarily includes adoption (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:15). If we were children of God already, we would not need to be adopted. As creatures, “in God we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and as Christians it is God “who worketh in us to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13), so we cannot give anything to God which He has not first given to us (Romans 11:35-36; Psalm 16:2). Therefore we can never be anything more than debtors to God (Luke 17:10). And if we were to earn with God through the merit of our works, then our salvation would not at all be of grace, because whatever is of works cannot be at all of grace (Romans 11:6; Romans 4:4-5). Psalm 50 speaks about how our sacrifices can not possibly increase God’s richness, since anything we can offer comes from Him, and belongs to Him already, “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” Isaiah also speaks of the insufficiency of anything we could bring to God in payment “And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity” (Isaiah 40:15-18). The multitude of continual sacrifices in the Old Testament was ordained specifically to teach God’s people that there is no sacrifice which we can bring which could ever make satisfaction for or expiate our sins, so that instead we look the the one sacrifice of the promised Messiah (Hebrews 10:1-18). This passage teaches that in contrast to the continual sacrifices of the Old Testament, telling us of our need for a better sacrifice, the absence of daily sacrifices in the New Testament tells us of our remission of sins, that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ’s sacrifice, since after He offered Himself, He sat down in heaven, telling us that His sacrificial work as Priest is finished, so that now He need only intercede for us by pointing to that one sacrifice. And this is why Rome’s Mass denies the value and sufficiency of this sacrifice (notwithstanding their contrived explanations), because the daily sacrifice of the Mass testifies that our sins have still has not been forgiven, since it is offered again and again and it is still not enough. It denies the efficacy of Christ’s atonement because it makes His sacrifice dependent on the participation of the people, and their disposition in receiving it, instead of on the work of Christ alone. We believe Christ’s sacrifice has paid for all our sins, past, present, and future, and that we receive the forgiveness of our sins, by faith in His sacrifice, that is, we know we are forgiven by believing in Christ’s sacrifice for us, not that our faith adds to it, or makes it effective.

 

[paperclip]

2c. The Authority to Forgive Sins

If I do something wrong towards Person X, only that person has the authority to forgive me for it. If Person Y said to me that they forgive me on the behalf of Person X, then I would not know whether Person X had really forgiven me, and Person X would understandably be very offended, especially if they did not in fact forgive me. Because our sins are against God, we must receive forgiveness from God Himself. It is impossible to forgive someone on behalf of someone else, even if they do forgive you. It is only possible to declare that another person forgives you, that is, to carry the message of forgiveness from that person. Only God Himself has the sovereign right to choose to either forgive or “retain” (not forgive) sins. This is why the Pharisees accused Christ of blaspheming when He forgave a cripple his sins against God (Mark 2:5-10). Christ demonstrated that He does have this divine authority on earth to forgive sins, by demonstrating His miraculous healing of the man, signifying His divine power. By claiming to have authority to forgive sins, Christ was claiming to be God Himself. Rome makes claims of deity therefore for the Roman bishops when she claims that they have authority to forgive sins. When the risen Christ gave the Spirit to the apostles, He gave them the authority to declare the forgiveness of sins as part of “the Great Commission”, in sending them as His ministers to teach and baptise all nations and preach the Gospel of the remission of sins. The Gospel declares the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of sins must be preached authoritatively. And the apostles were not given authority to forgive whoever they wanted, but to make an authoritative declaration of forgiveness to those whom God has forgiveness, that is, those who believe the Gospel are forgiven by God. This is demonstrated in Paul’s authoritative preaching in Acts 13: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” So the ministers of Christ may not declare forgiveness to whomever they please, but only those who believe are justified (declared righteous/forgiven). And one of your own has recognised that whenever a minister declares contrary to the doctrine of God, his false declaration has no authority. “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.” - Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534). So if any minister, no matter what office they hold in the church declares that the sins are forgiven of someone who does not believe the Gospel of Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, then they have no authority to do so. They are teaching falsely, and Christ is against them. But when a preacher declares to believers that their sins are forgiven, their declaration has the authority of God. The Holy Spirit speaks of this authority given to the teaching offices in the church when Paul writes, “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” The ministry of “reconciliation” literally is the “atonement” accomplished by Christ spoken of in Romans 5:11. Paul lays down the only authority by which forgiveness of sins can be declared to anyone in Romans 4:4-8, and shows that it is God alone who must forgive sin, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” II Corinthians 2:10 shows how the teaching offices must authoritatively declare forgiven those who are readmitted into the church after showing the genuineness of their faith by repentance and confession of their sin. Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 teach that all believing church members have the forgiveness of sins (unbelieving hypocrites in the visible church are not truly spiritual members of the church). Ephesians 4:32 again teaches that it is God Himself who has forgiven us for Christ’s sake. I John 1:9 assures us that as we confess our sins to God Himself, it is God Himself who “is faithful and just to forgives us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. He is just to forgiving us, as we have seen, on account of Christ’s propitiation for us (I John 2:1-2). So, God’s justice is our comfort, no longer a terrible fear.

 

[paperclip]

There’s more…I’ll post the rest of it later, you can see the whole thing here: facebook.com/#!/notes/samuel-watterson/answers-to-romes-claims/10151450856020479

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hey paperclip!

Here is the issue. Your brother-in-law is rooted in his faith as much as you are. Debating faith and doctrine will only end at dispair. You can tell him to visit www.scirpturecatholic.com to answer all his questions, but if he views Sacred Scripture in a different way than the Church, then he will constantly argue with you. The best thing to do is to back up, give him the site to view on his own time and simply pray that the Holy Spirit work on him. All we can do is plant the seed of truth with people and offer them hope. They will either reject or accept, but debating it over and over will only end up with hurt feelings and bad blood in the family. I hope this helps!

 

[pablope]

Hi all,

I recently married into a protestant family (my husband is converting to catholicism) and I’ve found myself sucked into a facebook debate with my brother in law. I’d appreciate help with refuting his (very long) treatise - it follows below! Thanks so much for your help…

 

[ahs]

Only 1 at a time, paperclip…pick one you are strongest in and discuss only that…and don’t move on to another until the first is at least understood by both parties. For example, 1b:

It is simply not true that Rome only desires to show Mary the respect and honour that she deserves

He attempts to equate our view of Mary to what these men were doing. Well, we don’t offer sacrifice to Mary. What he does not recognize (for whatever reason) is that GOD chose to come to man through Mary. Then, God gave Mary to man (as a Mother) at the Cross. Who is man to reject that and ignore her? Who are we to ignore teh Word of God which quotes Mary as saying “…ALL generations shall call me blessed…”? Who are we to set ourselves up above the Angel of God who paid her homage in his greeting to her in the first chapter of Luke?

…"See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, …

I have never seen anyone, ever, prostrate themselves before Mary. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but if he is accusing the Church of doind so, he’ll have to support his assertion by providing you the Catholic Teaching that provides for this practice…and he can’t do it. HE needs to define “worship” for you. If his definition is “giving to God that which is only due to God”, then Catholics do not “worship” Mary and if he insists we do, the burden in his to prove it from Catholic Doctrine.

…ascribe to her names, attributes, and offices which belong to God.

He hasn’t a clue what this means. If he wants to point to the “error” or “blasphemy”, he needs to find teh pertinent Church Teaching, study it, and then argue the reality instead of arguing this fantasy notion he has happened upon. I could sum it up as being what I mentioned in the first part…God chose to come to man THROUGH Mary…literally…and His choice. He also gave Mary to man as a mother at the Cross. Biblical, and the way God wants it. End of discussion.

They pray to Mary (and other mere creatures, including departed souls, and angels). But that to which you pray is your god. .QUOTE]

According to whom? To “pray” means literally to ask a favor. Are you my “god” if I ask you for a cup of sugar? Are you my “god” if I ask you to pray for me? No, and no. The Bible is FULL of references to people praying for one another, appealing to one another, begging of one another.

Prayer can only be directly rightly to God therefore.

I would say that ALL our prayers are ultimately directed toward God, regardless of to whom we go for intercession. I believe all those in the NT, like Paul, also believe this and they had no problem whatever asking for prayers and praying for others.

And this must be because prayer necessarily ascribes various divine attributes.

Is this from the Bible, or did he just make this up?

Prayer to Mary ascribes to her divine omniscience to receive all such prayers, even unspoken ones, simultaneously from millions.

Quite simply, no, it doesn’t necessarily do so. But yes, any person in heaven could practically “hear” the prayers of “millions” all at once. That’s because there is not “time” as we understand it in heaven. He should read “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. I sincerely would recommend this book to him.

It also ascribes divine omnipotence to answer such prayers. These are attributes which may only be ascribed to God.

Does it ascribe, to you or me, divine omnipotence to answer such prayers when we pray for one another? No. Our prayers are intercessory…and this is modeled countless times in Scripture. For example:

Rom 15:30; Col 4:3; 1Thess 5:25; 2Thess 1:11; 2Thess 3:1; Eph 6:18-19; Tob 12:12; Rev 5:8; Mk12:26-27; Mk 9:4; Lk 23:43; Rev 6:9-11; Heb 12:1; Lk 16:19-30; Rev 20:4; Wis 3:1-6; 1Tim 2:1-7; 1Pet 2:5; Mk 10:18; Mt 25:23; Jn 10:11-16; Jn 21: 15-16; Eph 4:11; Heb 3:1, 7:24, 9:12-13; Rev 1:6, 5:10…

(Some of those will be more in reference to the fact that God uses us to help and guide one another, even lead one another, in unison with the fact that Christ is still the One Mediator between God and man.)

Furthermore, God has forbidden and made impossible any contact with the dead (Deut. 18:10-12). A necromancer is one who communicates with the dead.

Has he forgotten that Christ made sure to point out to us that God is the God of the living? Those who have passed on before us are alive…our souls are immortal. We don’t communicate with the dead. We ask those who are ALIVE to pray for us. Now, to be sure, the Church does condemn conjuring spirits and practices of divination.

…

 

[ahs]

If Rome will claim, “Aha, but we don’t claim to get messages back.” First of all, that is false, because there are innumerable claims of people receiving messages from Mary, other saints, and angels. And secondly, it is still necromancy even without receiving any message back.

Saul tried to pray to Samuel, and you see what judgment he received (I Samuel 28:11-20).

Strawman fallacy.

…(Some of this I am now glancing past because it’s all teh same argumetn about praying to the “dead” which has been covered…)

Furthermore, our prayers must be according to the will of God only, and since we pray according to God’s will only, we must pray with the full assurance of faith, since we believe that God is faithful and works all things for our good (Romans 8:28; Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 4:14-16; James 1:5-8).

And? How is asking others to pray for us contrary to God’s Will? If it is, then Paul is guilty as well, as are the majority of the people in the Scriptures who were praised for their intercessory prayers and asked to pray for one another, the Church’s that Paul wrote to, etc…

Finally, our ancient creed of Chalcedon, deliberately, wisely, and reverently, does not call Mary simply the “mother of God”. It was because of the blasphemous abuse of this title that the controversy arose within the church which produced this creed. Instead, the creed carefully qualifies it, “mother of God, according to the manhood”. Mary was not the mother of Christ according to the least part of His divine nature.

Oh, so Christ’s Human Nature can be separated from His Divine Nature? This necessarily results in there having to be 2 Sons…2 “Second Persons” of the Trinity. This heresy was stamped out LONG ago. I suggest reading this: catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god The Nestorian heresy dates from the 5th century, or thereabouts, and was soundly refuted by teh Church because of the logical conclusion that the Trinity was no longer a “Trinity” when taken to its logical conclusion.

And as for the “Immaculate Conception” such a doctrine was unknown in the early church, and many of the early fathers specifically referred to Mary as a sinner, Tertullian, Athanasius, Crysostom, to name a few.

catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace
The Immacualte Conception has developed over time, with mention as early as 70 AD. The Greek word “kecheritomene” which is used in Luke’s Gospel, is the perfect passive participle which translates into “full of grace”, carrying the meaning that this grace had filled her completely from the moment of her existence. Now, certainly back in those days, men were not aware of exactly “when” a person came to exist…they did not have the notion of the sperm meeting the egg, etc…which we know as conception…some things develop as our understadning of them grows…kinda like how a sapling grows into a mighty oak.

And this can be proven clearly not only from her own words (Luke 1:47-48),

Needing a savior does not maek one a sinner. (See one of the lins I provided.) She was indeed saved…by being preserved in Grace rather than falling from it and having to be picked back up.

…or from her conduct and Christ’s teaching (Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27-28),

?? (Read the links I provided.)

…When the [PAUL, guided by the Holy Spirit] teaches in Romans 3:12 by quoting the Old Testament, “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one,” it does not make an exception for Mary. Christ is alone excepted,…

Not so fast. No, Christ is not excepted from that statement either if we are to take it as strictly as he wants to put it. Neither are infants who cannot even reason, and therefore logically cannot sin. So, either an exception can be made for Christ, and therefore a reasonable one also for babies and even Mary…or Christ also is among this group of sinners. IF we are only reading the words of the text, without making inferences, then we must recognize that Christ was not literally and textually excluded here.

…being conceived by the Holy Spirit, so that His sinlessness and divinity can only be properly ascribed to God (Hebrews 2:16-18; 4:15).

This is not mentioned in Romans 3:12, so if we are to account for it, we must use interpretation, inference, human understanding, etc…to recognize it. IF we can do that then, there is no reason why we cannot use the same reasoning to understand exceptions for babies and even for Mary.

 

[pablope]

2c. The Authority to Forgive Sins

I will tackle this a bit. As you said, it is long and winded:

Because our sins are against God, we must receive forgiveness from God Himself.

 

[PJH_74]

I really do not have the time to read and comment on everything posted. But I did want to ask what both of your motives are. If this is something both of you can walk away from with respect and further undertanding of each other, have at it. But if this is simply trying to prove who is “right” and “wrong” none of this moves the Kingdom of God forward. If you brother-in-law blames you for “stealing” his brother from their faith, this is something between them and not you.

What kind of Protestant faith are we dealing with here?

 

[pablope]

2c. The Authority to Forgive Sins

So if any minister, no matter what office they hold in the church declares that the sins are forgiven of someone who does not believe the Gospel of Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, then they have no authority to do so.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Finally, our ancient creed of Chalcedon, deliberately, wisely, and reverently, does not call Mary simply the “mother of God”. It was because of the blasphemous abuse of this title that the controversy arose within the church which produced this creed. Instead, the creed carefully qualifies it, “mother of God, according to the manhood”. Mary was not the mother of Christ according to the least part of His divine nature.”

Might want to read the entire creed, and the others which go along with Church history.

THE CHALCEDONIAN CREED

adopted A.D. 451

We then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers handed down to us.

Here’s the others which indeed go along with it.

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ancientcreeds.html

 

[Steveabrous]

Ok. I didn’t have time to read all of it. But I will answer all of the objections with this. What he is really saying is - 'The word of God is contained solely in scripture." And that is incorrect. The word of God comes to us through scripture, the magisterium, and tradition. And I will give biblical evidence for this. You see he is trying to overwhelm you with verses. He is saying this verse says this and that verse says that and no verse says this thing so you Catholics are wrong. But again Thats only if sola scriptura is right and it’s not. Scripture is only 1/3 of it. If you only have 1/3 of the truth you will fall into error. As is evident with all the different Christians denomiations. If all the truths of christianity were in the bible then there would be one clear teaching from the bible. As is there are thousands of denominations because they can’t agree on what the bible says.

The bible says in 2nd thes. 2:15 " So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

also in 1st Corinthians chapter 11 Paul gives instructions about the Eucharist. Only to end the topic with “And when I come I will give further directions.”

This is clear evidence that there are teachings of the Apostles that are not in the bible.-Tradition

Where do you think you will find these teachings? In a church that is only a few hundred years old, or the original church?

Consider this:

Acts chapter 15:

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

16:4) As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey

Notice the holy spirit didn’t go to every individual and tell them circumcission was no longer required. He used a council of the church leaders, they made a decision, and the people were expected to obey.

this is clear evidence for the magisterium.

Only the Catholic church, and the orthodox churches can trace their line to the apostles to prove that they have this kind of Authority. Further more the decision made in acts caused a heresy with people going up against the apostles on this issue because scripture said you must be circumcised.

“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” 1st Timothy 3:15

Notice it’s the church, not scripture, that is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[paperclip]

Thanks so much for your help so far! I really appreciate it. Currently we’re discussing the magisterium and free will… here is his last comment.

And the question of authority is more fundamental (and really determinative) to ascertaining the truth about the will of fallen mankind.

Because, at least according to the official stance, Rome claims that Scripture is authoritative, that means I can argue from that basis (which you also hold to be authoritative) in order to demonstrate that Rome’s Tradition and Magisterium is inconsistent with Scripture. I can also argue on the basis of the ancient creeds which the Reformed churches hold as authoritative as they correctly systematise and summarise the teaching of Scripture, as well as from wherever the early church fathers and Christian teachers speak according to Scripture, yet contrary to Rome’s Tradition.

Your task then, apart from showing how Rome’s Tradition and Magisterium do not contradict Scripture, would be to demonstrate from the authority which we hold to (Scripture) either why the Reformed interpretation is wrong, or why holding it alone as authoritative is inconsistent with itself, or how it in itself proves the validity of Rome’s Tradition and Magisterium. The first would be enough to disprove to me our position, the second would only disprove to me the basis of our authority (but not establish an alternative), and the third would prove to me Rome’s authority.

I posit that you cannot prove from Scripture itself that it teaches any other authority besides itself available to us today by which we can prove what is true and what is not concerning the Christian faith. Scripture describes itself as the very breathed out words of God and written by holy prophets who were carried along by the Holy Spirit as a ship is carried by the wind. It describes nothing else in anywhere even close to those terms. Further, it says that the apostles and prophets are in the foundation of the church, by which we know that all prophecy, direct authoritative revelation, has ceased. Furthermore (and this is the clincher, and was so in the Reformation), Scripture itself speaks of its sufficiency:

II Timothy 3:15-17
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

It is this sufficiency of Scripture (not merely its authority) which determines that questions regarding our faith and salvation can be resolved by its authority alone. So, you may claim that Rome’s Tradition and Magisterium are also authoritative, and I may deny that, but regardless, Scripture itself teaches that it is sufficient for this purposes of this discussion.

Scripture on its own is able to make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”, and it “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works.”

It has this power or attribute of sufficiency precisely because it is the word of God Himself, and as Christ said, “My words are spirit and life.”

Considering this, we will not be speaking at cross purposes, past each other, or at an impasse, but we can really deal with the issue.

 

[Indifferently]

Debating faith over facebook with your brother in law.

Great idea.

 

[paperclip]

I agree, it’s not ideal. The thing is, I have a severe hearing impairment so discussion with him face to face is difficult. Also, this has been causing problems in his family (he does not go to the weddings of his brothers and does not attend baptisms), I am not attacking, merely telling him the belief of the catholic church so at least he won’t be attacking misunderstood assumptions.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Any discussion of the Faith, IMHO, should start with Authority. Who has it and who doesn’t.

Here’s an excerpt from a discussion I had with a very dear Reformed friend of mine.

1. Authority - Jesus and the Apostles

• John 7:
  16 So Jesus answered them,"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.17 If anyone’s will is to do God’st will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

Matthew 16:
16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:
15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them int the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Luke 9:
1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.3 And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.t 4 And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.5 And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them."6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Luke 10:
17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!"18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Acts 20:
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.*

**I believe that it can be established that God gave authority to Jesus and that Jesus, in turn, gave authority to the Apostles as well.
**

Continued

 

[Isaiah45_9]

On the same hand, the Apostles’ authority is passed on to others (an Overseer is a Bishop):

*Acts 1:
21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 6:
1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.3 Therefore, brothers,t pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
*

*Acts 9:
10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, "Here I am, Lord."11 And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying,12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight."13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem.14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name."15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;

Acts 13:
1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 14:
19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.20 But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe.21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Acts 15:
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers,23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.*

Continued