Yet again -- OSAS and faith alone

[2nd_Adam]

Do you believe then that the scripture has the final authority over the Church?
If so where in the scriptures does it say that?
If so then who has the authority to interpret the scriptures?

When you say the Church split. Do you mean the reformation? or the great Schism?
I don’t believe the Church has split. The heresies and their deceivers have come out from within it just as the writers of the NT warned us they would. The Catholic Church is as united as it had ever been. I don’t know that the Orthodox Church is considered heretical. hence the word Schism.

I believe God has the final authority over all things. Maybe the better question is how God reveals Himself authoratively, written revelation or the Catholic Magestrium? I believe there is much room in the Catholic Church for diversity over interpertation of the Scriptures on many topics since only a handful of the Scirptures have offical Catholic interpertations. I believe Scripture is self authenticating, proclaiming to be the Word of God… even according to Jesus Himself. When I speak of the split, maybe I mean the schism between the east and the west churches. I recogonize the major problems found in modern day churches with Protestant roots. However, most of these Protestant churches do not adhere or teach what the original Protestant Reformers believed on the core issues. I still think the big divide between official Catholicism and historic Protestantism is the doctrine of justification… which is determined by our belief in final authority.

 

[MrS]

I believe God has the final authority over all things. Maybe the better question is how God reveals Himself authoratively, written revelation or the Catholic Magestrium? I believe there is much room in the Catholic Church for diversity over interpertation of the Scriptures on many topics since only a handful of the Scirptures have offical Catholic interpertations. I believe Scripture is self authenticating, proclaiming to be the Word of God… even according to Jesus Himself. When I speak of the split, maybe I mean the schism between the east and the west churches. I recogonize the major problems found in modern day churches with Protestant roots. However, most of these Protestant churches do not adhere or teach what the original Protestant Reformers believed on the core issues. I still think the big divide between official Catholicism and historic Protestantism is the doctrine of justification… which is determined by our belief in final authority.

first… Where in Scripture would you find support that it, itself, is self-authenticating??

second… I would opine that the protestant communities have a flawed concept of the Atonement, and that leads to all the other flaws which sprung from the dissent of the 1500’s.

.

 

[traillius]

I believe God has the final authority over all things. Maybe the better question is how God reveals Himself authoratively, written revelation or the Catholic Magestrium?
The choice of A or B is not a valid choice in this instance. A and B are complementary not oppositional

I believe there is much room in the Catholic Church for diversity over interpertation of the Scriptures on many topics since only a handful of the Scirptures have offical Catholic interpertations. I believe Scripture is self authenticating, proclaiming to be the Word of God… even according to Jesus Himself. When I speak of the split, maybe I mean the schism between the east and the west churches. I recogonize the major problems found in modern day churches with Protestant roots. However, most of these Protestant churches do not adhere or teach what the original Protestant Reformers believed on the core issues. I still think the big divide between official Catholicism and historic Protestantism is the doctrine of justification… which is determined by our belief in final authority.

 

[greggy53]

I believe God has the final authority over all things. Maybe the better question is how God reveals Himself authoratively, written revelation or the Catholic Magestrium? I believe there is much room in the Catholic Church for diversity over interpertation of the Scriptures on many topics since only a handful of the Scirptures have offical Catholic interpertations. I believe Scripture is self authenticating, proclaiming to be the Word of God… even according to Jesus Himself. When I speak of the split, maybe I mean the schism between the east and the west churches. I recogonize the major problems found in modern day churches with Protestant roots. However, most of these Protestant churches do not adhere or teach what the original Protestant Reformers believed on the core issues. I still think the big divide between official Catholicism and historic Protestantism is the doctrine of justification… which is determined by our belief in final authority.

Ok, God is head of the Church, and scripture is the self- authenticating word of God-agreed. That scripture explicitly gives the Church the authority to determine what is scripture, and the interpretation of scripture. The scriptures themselves give the Church the final authority. Jesus himself gave this authority, and office to the Church. He compared his relationship to the Church to a groom and bride. The bride and Groom are one. God reveals himself authoritatively through his Church. All this is in the self-authenticating scriptures. Therefore if you believe in the authority of the scriptures you believe in the authority of the Church. A good case for this comes from the book of ACTS where at the council of Jerusalem a discussion was held to determine if Christians were required to be circumcised. The council decided no, they don’t. But this was in direct violation of scripture!! The OT required circumcision of all males as it was the law of Mosses and the direct command of God’s self-authenticating scripture. Yet St Peter declares otherwise. On what authority?

ACTS 15:28 “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:”

St Peter, the head of the Church declares that the Holy Spirit and the Church have decided… Not the scriptures.

Finally St Paul in his letter to Timothy tells him:1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The Church is the Pillar of truth.

 

[2nd_Adam]

first… Where in Scripture would you find support that it, itself, is self-authenticating??

second… I would opine that the protestant communities have a flawed concept of the Atonement, and that leads to all the other flaws which sprung from the dissent of the 1500’s.

.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, - Apostle Paul

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” - Jesus

What is your view of the atonement? Maybe we agree more than you think. The centrality of Christianity is Christ and Him crucified for sinners, bringing them to God.

 

[2nd_Adam]

, written revelation or the Catholic Magestrium?
The choice of A or B is not a valid choice in this instance. A and B are complementary not oppositional

For a Catholic Christian, they are complimentary. For a Protestant Christian, they are not. For an Orthodox Christian, they are not too.

I understand that Orthodox Christians reject sola scriptura, but they do not submit to the Catholic Magestrium as final authorit, correct?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Ok, God is head of the Church, and scripture is the self- authenticating word of God-agreed. That scripture explicitly gives the Church the authority to determine what is scripture, and the interpretation of scripture. The scriptures themselves give the Church the final authority. Jesus himself gave this authority, and office to the Church. He compared his relationship to the Church to a groom and bride. The bride and Groom are one. God reveals himself authoritatively through his Church. All this is in the self-authenticating scriptures. Therefore if you believe in the authority of the scriptures you believe in the authority of the Church. A good case for this comes from the book of ACTS where at the council of Jerusalem a discussion was held to determine if Christians were required to be circumcised. The council decided no, they don’t. But this was in direct violation of scripture!! The OT required circumcision of all males as it was the law of Mosses and the direct command of God’s self-authenticating scripture. Yet St Peter declares otherwise. On what authority?

ACTS 15:28 “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:”

St Peter, the head of the Church declares that the Holy Spirit and the Church have decided… Not the scriptures.

Finally St Paul in his letter to Timothy tells him:1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The Church is the Pillar of truth.

That’s good Catholic apologetics… However, I understand the Scriptures reveal that James was authorative at the Council of Jerusalem. It’s debatable. Even if Peter was authorative at that Council, it does not support the Catholic belief of “Apostolic Succession”. Peter was defintely an Apostle but it sure seems God used Paul in greater capacity in the New Testament.

12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant [2] of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

 

[2nd_Adam]

I have found… after decades of discussion with our separated brethren… that the underlying difference is often NOT built on OSAS, or S.F., or S.S. … but a rather sublet misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Atonement.

If non-Catholics had a better understanding… all Scriptural… they wold come to see the strong reasonableness of the Catholic position from Scripture.

And many would see the flaws that are the fruits of the reformers who doth "protest’ too much.,

.

Please explain in regards to our difference of the atonement. My view of the atonement is Reformed.

 

[greggy53]

That’s good Catholic apologetics… However, I understand the Scriptures reveal that James was authorative at the Council of Jerusalem. It’s debatable. Even if Peter was authorative at that Council, it does not support the Catholic belief of “Apostolic Succession”. Peter was defintely an Apostle but it sure seems God used Paul in greater capacity in the New Testament.

12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant [2] of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

I wasn’t making an argument for the primacy of St Peter, or apostolic succession. I was arguing how scripture itself demonstrated the Church’s authority over the scriptures. I never said they didn’t meditate on, or consult the OT, just that they went directly against it. by not requiring circumcision . You didn’t comment on that.

But since you brought it up it was a council, and St James was giving his testimony, and opinion. I believe St Peter was the one who delivered the final decision. If you want to discuss apostolic succession I’m all for it, but I fear we are straying from the topic of this post, and may incur the censure of the moderators.

 

[kcmekim]

As others have pointed out in various threads, the Once saved always saved principle is in direct conflict with the parables of matthew ch. 25. In these, Jesus tells that actions affect eternal states. Please reconcile these parables with the OSAS or faith alone theories.

There is nothing to reconcile. They’re parables. We don’t draw our doctrine from parables.

Parables are descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I wasn’t making an argument for the primacy of St Peter, or apostolic succession. I was arguing how scripture itself demonstrated the Church’s authority over the scriptures. I never said they didn’t meditate on, or consult the OT, just that they went directly against it. by not requiring circumcision . You didn’t comment on that.

But since you brought it up it was a council, and St James was giving his testimony, and opinion. I believe St Peter was the one who delivered the final decision. If you want to discuss apostolic succession I’m all for it, but I fear we are straying from the topic of this post, and may incur the censure of the moderators.

Good point, let’s stay within the thread topic. Here is my version of OSAS based on Scripture. Those who are chosen, those God foreknew will never fall away… see the Scripture highlighted in red. I think Augustine really brought out the sovereignity of God in regards to the elect of God, which I believe is a permissible view within the Catholic Church, maybe? On the other hand, we you read the Council of Trent, I’m not so sure.

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because [6] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, [7] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

God’s Everlasting Love

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be [8] against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. [9] 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Rom 8

 

[traillius]

There is nothing to reconcile. They’re parables. We don’t draw our doctrine from parables.

Parables are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Sola scriptura is not applied to the entirety of scriptura?
Its " just " a parable. well the book of James is " just " a book…
fair enough.
Do you draw your doctrines from Jesus’ direct commands?
" what must I do to inherit eternal life. You know the commandments… all these I have done since youth. One thing more, sell all you have, give to the poor, and follow me. "
sounds like a bunch of works, which can affect eternal states.

 

[kcmekim]

Sola scriptura is not applied to the entirety of scriptura?

As far as I know it is.

 

[kcmekim]

Sola scriptura is not applied to the entirety of scriptura?
Its " just " a parable. well the book of James is " just " a book…

I never said “just a parable”. I never said that parables aren’t important. I simply said that they’re descriptive, not prescriptive, and that we don’t draw our doctrine from them.

 

[traillius]

descriptive, prescriptive
tomato, tomaato…

• shrug *
  Well" all scripture is god breathed, useful for all… "
  if scripture says " work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", I guess I will have to WORK it out.

 

[kcmekim]

descriptive, prescriptive
tomato, tomaato…

Do you even know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive?

 

[greggy53]

I chopped up your thread a bit to save space.

…Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because [6] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, [7] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.God’s Everlasting Love8

All of the above is true, but it by no means tells us that we cannot fall from grace. We must run the “good race” and be faithful to the Gospel relying on Gods grace to see us thru.
My bible explains verse 29 This way: “He also predestinated”… That is, God hath *preordained *that all his elect should be conformable to the image of his Son. We must not here offer to pry into the secrets of God’s eternal election; only firmly believe that all our good, in time and eternity, flows originally from God’s free goodness; and all our evil from man’s free will. .
I emphasized the word preordained because it is here that the Church teaches the truth of the matter. God “preordains” that all would come to him for salvation. He has foreknowledge of those who will and those who won’t. But because we are made in his image and likeness we must be free to chose to love God ourselves. Really free, the Predestination heresy denies this. He knows who will and who won’t but he doesn’t force it on anyone.
This is what St Paul is referring to when he uses the word “predestinated”
Think about it; the entire NT is full of scripture warning us against heresies, and false teachers, and snares of the devil. If what OSAS is true, then why bother? Those who are “predestined” for salvation will not fall into error, and those who are not “predestined” for salvation will. So why bother warning the elect if they cannot stray from the truth, or the un-saved if they cannot return to God.? The parable of the prodigal son makes this point. The son was living well with his father, he was “saved”. He decided to take his inheritance (salvation) and spend it, loose it. When he decided to return to his father that was his decision, his father did not force him at all. Our father in heaven knows what each of us will do, and scripture and the Church teach us that he wants all of us to come to him, but he will not force us even if we decide to leave him like the prodigal son.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I chopped up your thread a bit to save space.

All of the above is true, but it by no means tells us that we cannot fall from grace. We must run the “good race” and be faithful to the Gospel relying on Gods grace to see us thru.
My bible explains verse 29 This way: “He also predestinated”… That is, God hath *preordained *that all his elect should be conformable to the image of his Son. We must not here offer to pry into the secrets of God’s eternal election; only firmly believe that all our good, in time and eternity, flows originally from God’s free goodness; and all our evil from man’s free will. .
I emphasized the word preordained because it is here that the Church teaches the truth of the matter. God “preordains” that all would come to him for salvation. He has foreknowledge of those who will and those who won’t. But because we are made in his image and likeness we must be free to chose to love God ourselves. Really free, the Predestination heresy denies this. He knows who will and who won’t but he doesn’t force it on anyone.
This is what St Paul is referring to when he uses the word “predestinated”
Think about it; the entire NT is full of scripture warning us against heresies, and false teachers, and snares of the devil. If what OSAS is true, then why bother? Those who are “predestined” for salvation will not fall into error, and those who are not “predestined” for salvation will. So why bother warning the elect if they cannot stray from the truth, or the un-saved if they cannot return to God.? The parable of the prodigal son makes this point. The son was living well with his father, he was “saved”. He decided to take his inheritance (salvation) and spend it, loose it. When he decided to return to his father that was his decision, his father did not force him at all. Our father in heaven knows what each of us will do, and scripture and the Church teach us that he wants all of us to come to him, but he will not force us even if we decide to leave him like the prodigal son.

Please correct me if I misunderstand you. Are you saying what God preordains will not come to pass? I think your Catholic notes may teach otherwise, that all of God’s elect should be comform to His Son. It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not see God as sovereign in salvation… allowing each man to determine His own eternal fate. If man determines how own eternal fate, how does that fit into the Catholics view on saving grace? Maybe we need to qualify who are the elect spoken about in the New Testament. Check this out. Paul labors for a group of sinners called the elect, and not all mankind.

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - 2 Tim 2:10

Jesus also does not appear to be praying for the entire world. Rather, Jesus is praying for the same group (elect) that Paul labors for… those whom the Father gave to the Son as His bride.

17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. - John 17

 

[greggy53]

Please correct me if I misunderstand you. Are you saying what God preordains will not come to pass? I think your Catholic notes may teach otherwise, that all of God’s elect should be comform to His Son. It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not see God as sovereign in salvation… allowing each man to determine His own eternal fate. If man determines how own eternal fate, how does that fit into the Catholics view on saving grace? Maybe we need to qualify who are the elect spoken about in the New Testament. Check this out. Paul labors for a group of sinners called the elect, and not all mankind.

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - 2 Tim 2:10

Jesus also does not appear to be praying for the entire world. Rather, Jesus is praying for the same group (elect) that Paul labors for… those whom the Father gave to the Son as His bride.

17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. - John 17

It is Gods desire that all the world would come to him:
John 3 :16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
Note the words “Whosoever”.
John 3 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

He came to redeem the world.!! This what is meant by all of us being preordained for salvation.
But we also know that the world rejected him. Those that believe in him have eternal life. This is an act of free will. …Choose today who you will serve…. The scriptures are full of people making such choices. We are not puppets we are made in his image and likeness. This in no way reduces God’s role in salvation.

Josue 24 15 But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice: choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Amorrhites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord

The elect are those who choose to believe in our Lord, and do his will. It is by his Grace that we are saved

 

[MrS]

Please explain in regards to our difference of the atonement. My view of the atonement is Reformed.

See… told you there was a difference. You can offer your view in one sentence,

The reformed Atonement has too many flaws to list here … CAF limits 5000 words to a reply, so it would take about 30 replies to address your question.

Perhaps, in about a week, I can have available to you a presentation on the Atonement which Christ’s One Church has believed and taught for 2000 years. It is much more awesome and Christ centered than anything from Calvin etc.

In the meantime, perhaps you could assemble a clear idea of reformed atonement.

.