Rubutting a Baptist on Faith and Works

[unacanta]

By this reasoning one is not justified by* faith *either…

It is JESUS CHRIST who justifies one in Faith and Baptism.

If faith in of itself is a deed done in righteousness in Tit3:5, then no, it can not stand as the vehicle by which we are saved
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Tit 3:5-7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

We are saved by His mercy, and justified by His grace. All those whom are saved by His mercy and justified by His grace have Saving Faith which is given to them. It goes with out saying that if one does not have Saving Faith, then he has not been justified nor have they been saved by grace.

Now you would have to agree with me that all those who have Saving Faith are not necessarily Baptized by water. This outward sign of the inward work sometimes does not avail itself because of the limits of time, space and the natural element of water.

1. Thief on cross, there was no time for baptism his death was imminent.
2. The habitat (space) does not have a baptismal. Some prison do not have this, so a prisoner who becomes a Christian does not have the baptismal lavender.
3. The Arabian Desert which lacks the very element water in which to carry out the baptism is lacking

So, I do agree “It is JESUS CHRIST who justifies one in Faith”

We see with baptism of course one can have Saving Faith on the way to be baptized and die in a tragic car wreck. They were saved by His mercy, and justified by His grace, thereby considered one of God’s own.

Baptism is not a deed done by me. It is received. No one can baptize himself. I can not baptize myself.

One can not baptize themselves, it requires a “man” to complete the action. Agreed. Since both individuals are required to accomplish the baptism, then baptism is a deed one in righteousness. One, by being baptized, the other in doing the baptizing. It takes only one Person to save, that being Christ. He saved us while we were yet sinners, when we were in a state of complete rebellion,

Baptism is a work by men to men so that men know that the Saving Faith in a person’s life is there. God knows, the Saving Faith is there because He is the One who has granted it.

 

[Bookcat]

If faith in of itself is a deed done in righteousness in Tit3:5, then no, it can not stand as the vehicle by which we are saved
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Tit 3:5-7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

We are saved by His mercy, and justified by His grace. All those whom are saved by His mercy and justified by His grace have Saving Faith which is given to them. It goes with out saying that if one does not have Saving Faith, then he has not been justified nor have they been saved by grace.

Of course it is by his mercy a Christian is justified…and it is by grace…and yes by faith…and by baptism. They are all part a whole.

One can line up verses from Sacred Scripture that that emphasize one aspect or another.

In all cases it is the work of the Holy Spirit…it is Jesus Christ who justifies etc…

 

[Bookcat]

Now you would have to agree with me that all those who have Saving Faith are not necessarily Baptized by water. This outward sign of the inward work sometimes does not avail itself because of the limits of time, space and the natural element of water.

1. Thief on cross, there was no time for baptism his death was imminent.
2. The habitat (space) does not have a baptismal. Some prison do not have this, so a prisoner who becomes a Christian does not have the baptismal lavender.
3. The Arabian Desert which lacks the very element water in which to carry out the baptism is lacking

So, I do agree “It is JESUS CHRIST who justifies one in Faith”

We see with baptism of course one can have Saving Faith on the way to be baptized and die in a tragic car wreck. They were saved by His mercy, and justified by His grace, thereby considered one of God’s own.

We use the term Faith…and to use it in the Pauline sense yes…a person can be justified prior to baptism. And yes if a person dies before he can be baptized we would see this too as a baptism of desire…even if only implicit.

 

[Bookcat]

One can not baptize themselves, it requires a “man” to complete the action. Agreed. Since both individuals are required to accomplish the baptism, then baptism is a deed one in righteousness. One, by being baptized, the other in doing the baptizing. It takes only one Person to save, that being Christ. He saved us while we were yet sinners, when we were in a state of complete rebellion,

Baptism is a work by men to men so that men know that the Saving Faith in a person’s life is there. God knows, the Saving Faith is there because He is the One who has granted it.

Christ is the one who baptizes. And it the Holy Spirit who is at with the washing of regeneration etc…

 

[Bookcat]

…

(the quotes used here are from either the RSV CE or ESV)

Jesus says in Mark : Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved…(the end of Mark)

In Acts 2 we find on Pentecost --after Peter has proclaimed the Gospel to the crowd --and they have asked "Brothers, what shall we do?”

he replies:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

and later it says: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Now this does not mean faith is not part of Baptism --it is. And it would have been here in Acts. But the text does* not* point to this part directly. It is included in Baptism.

If we move to Acts chapter 8 we find the Deacon Philip who has evangelized the Eunuch and the Eunuch responds: “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Even Paul

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…

(again no direct mention of Faith…)

and Peter in his letter states directly: “Baptism…now saves you…”

Now in pointing out all of this – does not mean that faith is not important. Baptism is actually called the “sacrament of faith”. Faith is extremely important. And it can include the faith of the Church.

It can happen --like the thief on the cross that one does not have a chance to be baptized or does not know one is to be …etc… but this is not the norm…

Jesus is quite clear and the practice one sees in the New Testament and among the early Christians is that one needs to be baptized.

Faith and Baptism are very important. They go together. Jesus says one must be born again of water and the spirit.

The Great reality of Baptism:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:27

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6 3:4

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness,
but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-6

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. [1] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 2 Cor 5:17

It is all by the Grace of God…the work of God.

 

[Bookcat]

it.

This is a another great text by Pope Benedict XVI on Paul an Faith…

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

again…

One can line up verses from Sacred Scripture that emphasize one aspect or another of justification (of going from not being in Christ to being in Christ).

One must take care to understand them all together …careful not to set one against the other.

 

[inkaneer]

Very disingenuous of you. We do respect the Fathers that have come before us and Church Authority (not necessarily RCC), we do hold both accountable to and all subordinate to Scripture. When a Pope or Church Authority strays from scripture then, of course it invalidates their teaching. By all means, follow the LDS, follow the JW or the other groups who call themselves Churches. So it is with the RCC, just because it is called a “Church Authority” does not mean we blindly follow it. Contrary to RCC teaching both the Authority and Pope are not infallible.

And by doing so you contradict the very scripture that you claim is superior to church authority. Scripture itself proclaims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If sola scriptura was a true doctrine scripture would not say that of the church but would do so of scripture. Also, we would have scripture tell us what is an inspired writing . In other words scripture would say what is scripture. It would validate itself. But it doesn’t. Instead what we have is the church validating scripture. In the protestant scheme that is an inferior authority validating a superior authority. That is totally illogical and philosophically impossible because no one can delegate more authority than what one has. Nor can a lesser authority delegate anything to a higher authority. But if, as Catholics claim, Church authority is on the same level as scripture [since they emanate from the same source] then all the contradictions disappear. The basic protestant doctrine is therefore invalid. But you should know that, being a sola scripturist. All you need do is read 2 Thess 2:15 and it will tell you so.

 

[Bookcat]

important note from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the relationship of Magisterium and the Word of God emp added…:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

---

PS: this does not mean of course that Christians do not read the scriptures themselves! or seek to understand them etc making use of the good resources etc…but this understanding is not apart from the Church…and the teaching office of the Church has the authority to give an authentic interpretation…

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

 

[unacanta]

And by doing so you contradict the very scripture that you claim is superior to church authority. Scripture itself proclaims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If sola scriptura was a true doctrine scripture would not say that of the church but would do so of scripture. Also, we would have scripture tell us what is an inspired writing . In other words scripture would say what is scripture. It would validate itself. But it doesn’t. Instead what we have is the church validating scripture. In the protestant scheme that is an inferior authority validating a superior authority. That is totally illogical and philosophically impossible because no one can delegate more authority than what one has. Nor can a lesser authority delegate anything to a higher authority. But if, as Catholics claim, Church authority is on the same level as scripture [since they emanate from the same source] then all the contradictions disappear. The basic protestant doctrine is therefore invalid. But you should know that, being a sola scripturist. All you need do is read 2 Thess 2:15 and it will tell you so.

The Church (not necessarily the RCC) is the Pillar, but always subject to and under the authority of scripture.

Please come to the discussion concerning faith and works, the subject is not Sola Scriptura.

Thanks

 

[unacanta]

I can say I totally agree with Bookcat on the following statement :

It is all by the Grace of God…the work of God.

Rom11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

You brought up Mark, I assume Mark 16:16
Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.
This verse is often quoted as supporting the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, a more careful analysis of the verse shows that it teaches nothing of the sort.
While the first clause says that all who both believe and are baptized will be saved, it does not say that all who neither believe nor are baptized will not be saved. In other words, the clause does not exclude any group, while it does tell of a group of people who will be saved, namely, those who both believe and are baptized. But the second clause negates one group: those who do not believe will not be saved. There is no negation of the group of those who believe but are not baptized. Thus, while the verse as a whole does teach that belief is essential to salvation, it does not teach that baptism is.
While this does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it does mean that this verse cannot be used to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Acts 2:
• King James Version Study Bible.
*2:38. Repent means “to change one’s mind.” Here, as throughout Scripture, one aspect of conversion is commonly used to represent all aspects: believing and calling as well as repenting. The grammatical name for allowing part of something to represent the whole is called synecdoche. Repentance is something every person must do (17:30). For several reasons be baptized should not be joined with for the remission of sins to teach baptismal regeneration. First, the context of this passage demonstrates that only the repentance is connected with the removal of sin at salvation: “Whosoever shall call … shall be saved” (v. 21). Peter’s next recorded sermon states only: “Repent … that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19). Second, throughout Acts men demonstrate their faith and salvation prior to baptism (cf. 10:43–47). Third, the soteriological passages throughout the New Testament do not include water baptism in the salvation experience—John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:10; Ephesians 2:1–10; 1 Peter 1:18, 19. Thus this verse more clearly reads, “Repent for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift which is the Holy Spirit; and let each of you be baptized in the name of Christ.” Though water baptism does not save or wash away our sins, it is a command that needs to be obeyed speedily after conversion. Jesus commanded it (Matt. 28:19, 20), as does Peter here. This is the consistent pattern throughout Acts (16:31–34; 18:8).
King James Version study Bible . 1997, c1988 (electronic ed.) (Ac 2:38). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Alas, I am out of room in the editor

 

[inkaneer]

The Church (not necessarily the RCC) is the Pillar, but always subject to and under the authority of scripture.

Please come to the discussion concerning faith and works, the subject is not Sola Scriptura.

Thanks

Now all you have to do to convince me of that is show me the scripture passage that says that. No where does scripture say the church is subject to scripture. Protestants made that up. It was an man made tradition invented in the 16th century that perverts scripture to the whims of man’s interpretations. Rather the church is subject to the Holy Spirit because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants are not.

In addition, sola scriptura is the subject because your position is based on an interpretation of a set of writings which you have no proof are divinely inspired. You might as well be quoting Shakespeare. The point is that when you refer to scripture you are admitting the authority of the church that determined which writings were scripture. Your denominations do not have the authority to say what is scripture and Scripture doesn’t say what is scripture. So what do you have? You have a mere guess. Doesn’t matter who or when the guess was made. Doesn’t matter if it was made all at once or over a period of centuries. It is still a guess. That is the world of protestant theology. BUT… If the scriptures were selected by a competent authority such as the Catholic Church using its authority to bind the scriptures then the scriptures are no mere guess but are indeed divinely inspired. So you see, sola scriptura is the root subject of any discussion with protestants. To paraphase an old computer saying, “sola scriptura in, garbage out.”

 

[unacanta]

More from Bookcat’s post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6443007&postcount=125

Acts 8:
Acts 8:35-38
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture [Isaiah 53:7-8], preached Jesus to [the eunuch]. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
* * * *And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him (Acts 8:35-38).
There is nothing on the surface of this account which teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, but teachers of baptismal regeneration refer to this as a good example of the manner of salvation. The eunuch had heard the Word, he had been taught, he had repented, he had believed, and finally he was baptized to complete the process. They contend that baptism must be involved in “preaching Jesus,” because otherwise the eunuch would not have known about it. If “preaching Jesus” included preaching baptism, they reason, baptism must be part of the Gospel, and since the Gospel is the way of salvation, baptism must be necessary to salvation.
But this neglects the context. Verse 27 tells us that this eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship. He was therefore familiar with the Jewish religion, if not actually a convert to it. If he were a convert, or if he were considering becoming one, he must have known of the Jewish practice of baptizing all converts to Judaism (which had been done for several centuries). The Jews used baptism as an initiation rite for Gentiles who were converted to Judaism, and in other religions as well. [7] Hence the eunuch would have been familiar with this use of baptism even if Philip never mentioned baptism.
What is more, the eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah, and happened at the moment when Philip joined him to be reading Isaiah 53:7-8. But the tense of the verb “read” in verse 28 is imperfect, meaning that he was continuing to read; that is, he had been reading before Philip got there and was still reading when Philip walked up to him. This makes it very probable that he had also just read Isaiah 52:15, which begins, “So shall He sprinkle many nations.” The eunuch, familiar with Judaism as he must have been since he had gone to Jerusalem to worship, would almost certainly have known that the Jews referred to this passage in connection with their rite of baptizing converts as initiation.
A further reason to believe that Philip’s preaching of Jesus did not include telling the eunuch of baptism is that Paul himself separated the preaching of the Gospel from baptism (I Corinthians 1:17). If Paul had left baptism out of the Gospel and Philip had it in the Gospel, there would be a contradiction in Scripture. But the simple answer is that Philip did not include the teaching of baptism in his preaching of Jesus.
It is perfectly allowable that Philip could have mentioned baptism, however, without making it a part of the preaching of Christ. The passage only mentions that he preached Christ to him, but this does not mean that after preaching Christ to him, he could not also have told him about baptism, and indeed about many other things. He could, therefore, have told the eunuch about baptism without saying that it was actually part of the saving Gospel.
With all of this in mind, it should be perfectly clear that Acts 8:35-38 does not prove that baptism is a part of the preaching of Christ, that is, a part of the Gospel. It certainly gives no clear indication that Philip taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, or that the eunuch believed it was; indeed not only does it give no clear indication, it gives no indication at all.
Acts 8:35-38, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Even Paul

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…

(again no direct mention of Faith…)

I will of course agree, no mention of faith in this passage. Paul’s eyesight was restored, he was filled with the Holy Spirit and did go on and be baptized. Acts9:15 Paul was a chosen instrument (vessel) to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact he was called by grace before he was even born. Gal1:15. Clearly if Paul is our example, then we are set apart before we are born and called by His grace. Faith, Repentance and Baptism are all part of our walk, but again a demonstration before men what God has done.

 

[unacanta]

More from Bookcat’s post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6443007&postcount=125

Does the bible teach that we have good works, yes. 2Cor9:8, we are to abound in good works. Eph2:10 we are created for good works in which we are to walk. Yet, we know that the first time we hold any of the works which we walk and abound as meritorious for salvation the works are no longer His works but ours and to be considered a wage. Paul tells us Rom4 that our faith is that which is counted as righteousness, our works are not, only as a wage.

Rom 4:4-5 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

I really appreciate Bookcat’s post and comments here. I am sure he has given those who feel Baptism is necessary for salvation lots of ammo for those dang Baptist who insist it is an outward sign of an inward work which has taken place by the Holy Spirit. Hopefully my refutation of Baptism as not necessary has given those same folks and idea of what they will encounter from a monologist.

Iron always sharpens Iron.
Una

 

[Bookcat]

I can say I totally agree with Bookcat on the following statement :

Rom11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

You brought up Mark, I assume Mark 16:16
Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.
This verse is often quoted as supporting the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, a more careful analysis of the verse shows that it teaches nothing of the sort.
While the first clause says that all who both believe and are baptized will be saved, it does not say that all who neither believe nor are baptized will not be saved. In other words, the clause does not exclude any group, while it does tell of a group of people who will be saved, namely, those who both believe and are baptized. But the second clause negates one group: those who do not believe will not be saved. There is no negation of the group of those who believe but are not baptized. Thus, while the verse as a whole does teach that belief is essential to salvation, it does not teach that baptism is.
While this does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it does mean that this verse cannot be used to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Acts 2:
• King James Version Study Bible.
*2:38. Repent means “to change one’s mind.” Here, as throughout Scripture, one aspect of conversion is commonly used to represent all aspects: believing and calling as well as repenting. The grammatical name for allowing part of something to represent the whole is called synecdoche. Repentance is something every person must do (17:30). For several reasons be baptized should not be joined with for the remission of sins to teach baptismal regeneration. First, the context of this passage demonstrates that only the repentance is connected with the removal of sin at salvation: “Whosoever shall call … shall be saved” (v. 21). Peter’s next recorded sermon states only: “Repent … that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19). Second, throughout Acts men demonstrate their faith and salvation prior to baptism (cf. 10:43–47). Third, the soteriological passages throughout the New Testament do not include water baptism in the salvation experience—John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:10; Ephesians 2:1–10; 1 Peter 1:18, 19. Thus this verse more clearly reads, “Repent for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift which is the Holy Spirit; and let each of you be baptized in the name of Christ.” Though water baptism does not save or wash away our sins, it is a command that needs to be obeyed speedily after conversion. Jesus commanded it (Matt. 28:19, 20), as does Peter here. This is the consistent pattern throughout Acts (16:31–34; 18:8).
King James Version study Bible . 1997, c1988 (electronic ed.) (Ac 2:38). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Alas, I am out of room in the editor

As for Mark…never said that it was not possible that a person could not be saved without baptism.

As for Acts … baptism is here and elsewhere as well as in the understanding of those Christians who followed in time right after them…washes away ones sins…and Peter said it saves. But again one should not parse verse against verse…but take them all together…and understand them as they have always been understood…

 

[Bookcat]

Acts 8:

Acts 8:35-38
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture [Isaiah 53:7-8], preached Jesus to [the eunuch]. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
* * * *And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him (Acts 8:35-38). /QUOTE]

Your thoughts on this matter are conjecture…no where does it say he did not mention baptism…much of the conversation is not recorded.

As well as we should note that this verse:

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
* * * *And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

may or may not have been actually in the text. My Protestant RSV includes it in the footnote but not in the text. As does the Evangelical ESV. It was a variant present in some manuscripts. But they and others have judged to not include it in the text itself.

Of course this does not mean that Faith is not part of things --of course it was.

Again my point here is that Faith and Baptism are not to be played one against the other.

Both are involved in justification.
​

​

 

[Bookcat]

[/INDENT]

I will of course agree, no mention of faith in this passage. Paul’s eyesight was restored, he was filled with the Holy Spirit and did go on and be baptized. Acts9:15 Paul was a chosen instrument (vessel) to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact he was called by grace before he was even born. Gal1:15. Clearly if Paul is our example, then we are set apart before we are born and called by His grace. Faith, Repentance and Baptism are all part of our walk, but again a demonstration before men what God has done.

Actually the text does not say he was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to baptism…

(of course others were…no dispute here…God can do what he wants in the order he wants…but in the case of Paul …the text does not say this)

yes Repentance and Faith and Baptism all go together …

But not as a mere demonstration before men of what God has done…that would be reading into the text a late Protestant understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

again…

One can line up verses from Sacred Scripture that emphasize one aspect or another of justification (of going from not being in Christ to being in Christ).

One must take care to understand them all together …careful not to set one against the other.

 

[unacanta]

And by doing so you contradict the very scripture that you claim is superior to church authority. Scripture itself proclaims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If sola scriptura was a true doctrine scripture would not say that of the church but would do so of scripture. Also, we would have scripture tell us what is an inspired writing . In other words scripture would say what is scripture. It would validate itself. But it doesn’t. Instead what we have is the church validating scripture. In the protestant scheme that is an inferior authority validating a superior authority. That is totally illogical and philosophically impossible because no one can delegate more authority than what one has. Nor can a lesser authority delegate anything to a higher authority. But if, as Catholics claim, Church authority is on the same level as scripture [since they emanate from the same source] then all the contradictions disappear. The basic protestant doctrine is therefore invalid. But you should know that, being a sola scripturist. All you need do is read 2 Thess 2:15 and it will tell you so.

There ya go again, wandering around bringing up Sola Scriptura when the discussion is on Faith and Works. I am sure there is a thread some where where you can present your papist views. Right now, try to stick to the subject at hand. Of course no one in the early church believed what you believe about the sufficiency of Scripture until the Reformation The Teaching Magisterim and strayed and it took the reformers to bring the error to light. I recommend reading James White’s Scripture Alone, he will explore the bible’s accuracy, authority and authenticity with you much better than I.

For right now hear what Clement of Alexandria has to say:

Faith will lead you. Experience will teach you. Scripture will train you.

Further he states:
I have demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority.

Be trained by Scripture and rest in the omnipotent authority. You seem to fail to understand the term omnipotent. It is a theological term that refers to all-encompassing power, in this case it attest to the all-encompassing power to which the church is subordinate.

 

[unacanta]

again…

One can line up verses from Sacred Scripture that emphasize one aspect or another of justification (of going from not being in Christ to being in Christ).

One must take care to understand them all together …careful not to set one against the other.

I agree, the study of God’s word the whole word is imperative.