Works of the Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Erick_Ybarra said:
The trinity is no development .
Click to expand...
Oh, I firmly disagree about that. 🙂 Keep in mind that development is not the same as creation. The seeds of the doctrine of the Trinity are in Scripture, to be sure, but our current understanding of it, its current formulation and the specific details about it, were developed later on. It took years to hammer out the doctrine of the Trinity as we currently have it. For example, how would you answer a Muslim who says to you, “The doctrine of the Trinity is a contradiction because it teaches that God is three persons and one person.” What text in the Bible would you go to in order to directly answer that objection?

Although it has its roots in Scripture, it didn’t just fall off the pages of Scripture, so to speak. If it were that simple and direct, then there would be no need for councils at all, no need for those men of old times to get together for long periods of time and formulate their articulations of vital doctrines. All they had to do, if you’re right, is simply hold up the Scriptures as the creed to point everyone to. And that is exactly what many evangelicals do when they say historically ignorant things like “No creed but the Bible.” This is why I don’t find your position to be understandable. You at least acknowledge creeds but then the logical conclusion of your position is that those creeds are really not necessary at all because they didn’t develop anything but simply copied and pasted right from the Bible–no development necessary.
 
Build a straw man to knock it down.

That’s the Protestant way isn’t it?

I wonder if they think it’s scriptural.
 
Koineman said:
How do you know that the apostles taught that the 66 books in your Bible are inspired?

This is why I brought up the issue of the canon of Scripture. The apostles nowhere specify which books make up the canon of Scripture, and yet you trust the Church’s word on that.

Like I said above, the apostles never taught which books make up the canonical Scriptures, yet you accept the list the church came up with. Yet you reject this teaching about Mary because the apostles were silent on it?

No, but it’s also true that the apostles did not spell it out in detail because it was not an issue in their time. It only became an issue later on when heretics spoke against it. THEN the church had to develop the doctrine of the Trinity based on the seeds of that doctrine contained in Scripture.

This is actually not true (the boldfaced part). I had that concern myself, but in reading what the Church teaches on it, I came to the conclusion that she still holds that people can be saved only through faith in Christ, that He is the only way of salvation. What Catholic text makes you think the CC teaches that worshipers from all religions can be saved?
Click to expand...
I have always been aware that the apostles did not teach that 66 books were inspired. In fact most of the apostles may have been unaware of some of these writings.

Lets say that Paul came to thessalonica and preached for the first time for 2 hours in the open air. But he never says that what he said is infallible or inspired by the holy spirit. Do we then conclude that what he said is possibly fallible and not inspired?

No its because of the background information that these questions do not even need to be asked. PAUL was sent by Christ. He did miracles. He saw Jesus. He’s consulted with the Jerusalem apostles, etc, etc… the same principle is in the decision of the canon as was the same principle employed in the choosing of Matthias
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I have always been aware that the apostles did not teach that 66 books were inspired. In fact most of the apostles may have been unaware of some of these writings.
Click to expand...
Then we must go outside the apostles to determine what makes up the canon of Scripture.

If, then, you must go outside the apostles to know what books go into the Bible–even though the apostles were totally silent on it–how can you reject something else the CC teaches simply because the apostles were silent on it? Sorry, I still don’t understand your position.
 
The Catholic Church did in fact decide the canon. But remember this was not an arbitrary decision. And it was nit just a situation of one or a few. This was a council of bishops from what was then around the whole world of christedom. The churches were in communion and had received and perpetuated the apostolic doctrine. Not to say there were never questions or misunderstandings.

The Church is endowed with the responsibility of perpetuating the pure and unadulterated doctrine given from God to Christ, Christ to the apostles, and the apostles to the original apostolic churches.

There is no free reign to teach or modify anything in the slightest.

The bishops at this council were comfortable, for the most part I’m assuming, that the decision over the canon was correct…not based off each others opinions by virtue of apostolic authority maintained in them, but through historical, corraborative, logical, rational, and systematic reasons that were not merely there because if WHO they were, but because of the TRUTH which God wants adhered to.
 
Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra View Post
“People who adhered to the apostolic doctrine were Catholic writers. Those who do not write in accordance with this are not catholic despite their claim to the name.”
…

SO, the thread has now changed to the Cannon and Authority? Great, the “Works vs Faith” was getting a little tiresome.

Actually, Erick, the history of the first four hundred years will reveal to you the “Authority” of determining the written manuscript/ or manuscripts from which the “Bible” is derived. Upon whom this “Authority” rested, the Councils bore that “Authority” and the FINAL word was sealed by the sitting Pope, at that time. If he could not attend a particular council, he sent a “Papal” representative, in his stead.

You see, in the structure of the Apostolic line, from Peter to Benedict XIVth there is an unbroken line of legitimate succession. I inserted the word “legitimate” because I’m sure you will find some naysayer that will point out the “imposters” or “pretenders” to the seat of Peter. There were more than a few. Also, I hope you are protecting yourself from the multitudes of Heresies that existed nearly from the first year after the Resurrection to the present. Yes, I say the “present” because some of the old heresies are just warmed over in the creeds or theologies of some various protestant denominations, you may even have been half baked by one. So, be on guard against assuming you know what Catholics believe or presume to understand the mind of the Church from some former lessons you have had taught to you, as gospel.

Jesus, in Matthew 16: 16-19, you will read the “seeds” of that Apostolic authority, that Jesus, himself, conferred on Peter, ONLY. Don’t get confused by the lead in (Matt 16:15) because he has directed his attention to Peter, verse 16, and addresses him specifically. Now please read Isaiah 22: 21-23, to reveal to you the familiar lines of the prophet. Jesus’ language and speeches are most notably from the Old Testament because his primary mission is to the “Chosen People”, not the Greeks, Romans, or any other non-Jew. If you fail to make this easy connection, Erick, any further discussion is a waste of time - especially yours. Catholics read Scripture as a living testament of a living person in Jesus Christ; not someone in past history, but the NOW.

Peace,

PT
 
I agree with most if what you said.

And no, Isaiah 22 has no connection to Peter the apostle.

Many catholics we’re unaware of this ‘‘connection’’ but still held to the papacy. This is a fitly new understanding from Cajetan.

And when Jesus told Peter that whatever he was to bind and loose on earth would be bound and loosed in heaven, he did not endow him with the ability and authority to deny any of the essential Christian doctrines, but rather to preserve them.
In other words, if Peter pronounced that all Islam is valid teaching, this is included in the word ‘‘whatevet’’ when Jesus says ‘‘whatever you bind’’.

It is not a free reign authority. It is closed into the doctrine that Christ gave to the Church. In the same way, the councils did not make the decision based merely off WHO they were, but what their roles were in the plan of Christs church .
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
The Catholic Church did in fact decide the canon. But remember this was not an arbitrary decision.
Click to expand...
That’s beside the point. The point is that if your notion that any doctrine that the apostles were silent on must be rejected, then you must reject the teaching that says what books go into your Bible. It doesn’t matter whether the bishops came to the conclusion arbitrarily or not. And frankly, this following statement of yours is not one that you can hold to, either, given your stance that apostolic silence warrants rejection:
The Church is endowed with the responsibility of perpetuating the pure and unadulterated doctrine given from God to Christ, Christ to the apostles, and the apostles to the original apostolic churches.
Click to expand...
So what we have is you saying:
  1. The apostles were silent about certain Marian doctrines.
  2. Therefore, I reject those Marian doctrines.
BUT
  1. The apostles were silent about what books make up the canon of Scripture.
  2. Therefore, I accept the church’s decision about that canon.
What???
There is no free reign to teach or modify anything in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Then give your Bible(s) to someone else, because you obviously cannot accept the tradition of the canon, since that was something the apostles were totally silent on.

Your position does not add up because it is self-contradictory and inconsistent.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
The church believed that it was only through Jesus Christian that man might be saved. The church teaches all worshippers from all religions can be saved despite their false doctrine.
Click to expand...
I’m still interested to know what specific Catholic source says this. Could you provide a citation and reference, please?
 
And the Lord Jesus did ascend into the sky.

And LO! As the apostles continued looking into the sky, down floated the King James Bible, leather bound, red letter edition.

And the falseness of sola scriptura was born.

Amen.
 
Koineman said:
I’m still interested to know what specific Catholic source says this. Could you provide a citation and reference, please?
Click to expand...
She still teaches that salvation can only come through Jesus Christ. He is the savior.

The fact that it is “possible” for those in other religions etc to be saved in a manner known only to God --but yet of course still by Jesus – is a truth to be held side by side with the first noted.
 
OK for starters. I don’t believe sola scriptural. Secondly, the canonization of scripture was not a doctrine.

For example, lets say your a a resident of thessalonica and Paul the apostle comes into town and preached for two hours on Christ.

If Paul never mentions that he was infallible or that we was inspired in the sermon, does that mean that believing Paul’s message was inspired is wrong? According to you, unless the apostles explicitly state that Paul’s message is inspired that it would be unapostolic to believe that.

To believe his message was inspired is to assume rightly the background information that needs no questioning. Paul is an apostle? He saw Jesus? He was sent by Jesus? He does miracles? Then we submit to his authority and message. No official publication that every word he says is inspired is required to have the valid belief that it is.

Its like if a shark was swimming to you.you don’t need the doctrine that states he’s dangerous to know he’s dangerous.

In the same way the bishops looked for the historical accurate andbapostolic writings and compiled them. The apostles would have consented. After all the same logic is at work in the selection of Matthias. Peter chose the qualified men to choose from.

The church h did nothing different in principle
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
OK for starters. I don’t believe sola scriptural. Secondly, the canonization of scripture was not a doctrine.

For example, lets say your a a resident of thessalonica and Paul the apostle comes into town and preached for two hours on Christ.

First, not every Thessalonian was converted or gave Paul the time day. Come on, that kind of evangelization doesn’t even happen today!]

If Paul never mentions that he was infallible or that we was inspired in the sermon, does that mean that believing Paul’s message was inspired is wrong? According to you, unless the apostles explicitly state that Paul’s message is inspired that it would be unapostolic to believe that.

Paul didn’t even know his letters were going to be preserved for all time. SO, why is this “infallibility” clinker thrown in here? As a matter of fact Peter even wrote in one of his letters that Paul’s letters were suppose to be read with caution so that they do not confuse the readers. Thus, your statement above makes no sense.

To believe his message was inspired is to assume rightly the background information that needs no questioning. Paul is an apostle? He saw Jesus? (Paul did not see Jesus) He was sent by Jesus? He does miracles? Then we submit to his authority and message. No official publication that every word he says is inspired is required to have the valid belief that it is.

*The “Official” publication was Paul’s acceptance at the Council in Jerusalem Acts ch 15 where he and Barnabas raised the question of circumcision for Greeks. The previous chapter shows Paul’s witness to be rejected - he was stoned. *

Its like if a shark was swimming to you.you don’t need the doctrine that states he’s dangerous to know he’s dangerous.

*This presumes “experience”. If one never visited the ocean, and totally unfamiliar with the sea creatures, be afraid of the shark can not stand. *

In the same way the bishops looked for the historical accurate and apostolic writings and compiled them. The apostles would have consented. After all the same logic is at work in the selection of Matthias. Peter chose the qualified men to choose from.

I do not see your connection, in the above remark regarding Apostolic “consent” to choosing a replacement for Judas? Peter called a Council to determine whether Matthias was going to be the one. Also, keep in mind, the Holy Spirit was invoked to guide the Apostles (not just Peter) in their choice. Now, do you intend to indicate that it required Councils to determine the Cannon? This is historically true.

The church did nothing different in principle
*
I don’t understand what you intend by this phrase? Unless you are affirming that it required a Council to determine Cannonisity of the Books of the Bible.*

Peace,
PT

PT
Click to expand...
 
highplainsrider said:
I don’t understand what you intend by this phrase? Unless you are affirming that it required a Council to determine Cannonisity of the Books of the Bible.*

Peace,
PT

PT
Click to expand...
What I am trying to say is this: It seems as if Catholics try to legitimize the infallible and indestructible teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church (whereas earlier on it was never called that) because they wrote and chose the Canon, because they developed and dogmatized the trinity, because they solved the arian controversy, because they settled disputes etc,etc

And this all took place not by virtue of who these people were themselves as people, but any so far as they had the ability to preserve the truth of the apostles doctrine.

You say that the apostles are silent about the 66 books of the Old & New Testaments. Well, if the 12 apostles were looking on, in spirit, to the councils of which confirmed the canon, they would not have been dumbfounded as to how the Bishops arrived at their conclusion. The apostles knew that there would have to be some major effort to preserve their original gospel message, and to find those writings which lie as close as possible with the 12 apostles (including Paul) would help in that effort of maintaining the apostolic pure doctrine. Can you imagine the Apostles in heaven looking to the council saying “Oh, well they are trying to find those writings which either we wrote or our counterparts wrote, in order to keep themselves in the truth and to secure a standard for the Catholic church…hmmmm…that makes sense”. They would not have said “Wow! Look at the authority of the Catholic Church, these men are mighty in Spirit enough to choose out of their own liking which books go into the Canon!!!”. This canonization was not a whimsical decision made by men who decided so because they thought some mystical authority lied in their spontaneous decision. Rather they employed the same methods that any historian at that time, given the right mission and logic, would have employed.

As far as the Trinity goes, what is developed? If you are willing to concede the the apostles did not teach that God the Father was God, the Jesus the Son was God, and that the Spirit was God, then you have just opened yourself to a doctrinal creation after the era of the original apostles. If however you say that there is a development on how Christians should understand this, I would say the Bishops carried a tradition of a way to understand this that kept the original doctrine there intact and unaltered. This is not a development of doctrine, but rather a development in ways to understand the same doctrine that had been there already.

This is getting kind of far out there. But For the Church in her mission to keep the apostolic truth pure in their life employing the method to choose those writings which most fitly qualify is anything but a new doctrine, for no one, not even the original 12 would have been baffled at the council, but they would have understood.
 
What is the difference between God willed works and works of the law?
 
I am not sure what you mean by God-willed works.

If you mean those good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in after being made a new creation in Christ Jesus? Then the difference between this and the “works of the Law” would be the outward physical rituals of religious ceremonies.

But it also includes that a man cannot, out of his own natural adamic state, produce faith and love so as to procure righteousness for himself.
 
What happens to a justified person when they refuse to do a God willed work?
 
The justified person, if one of his, remains in a state of righteousness. However if a justified person sins, they are forgiven through the confession and repentance of sin. Christ remains at the right hand of the father for all those who love God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top