Universalism and Particular Redemption

[fhansen]

Because in essence, you are accusing Reformed of defending only what they think (or claim) scripture to say, and not actual Scripture.

And as I’ve been maintaining, that’s either a distinction without a difference or a rather odd position in any case-because there’s no guarantee that they would ever think correctly as to its meaning. So they’re left with this great “thing”, this monument that all agree is beautiful and has beautiful things inside, but without any certainty or consensus necessarily about what those things are, and no sure way to access them.

Granted the Reformed do defend what they think Scripture teaches, including Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is the very precept that says Scripture trumps even all concepts and arrangements concerning scripture. (BTW, I don't see you commenting on what I said before, as to whether Sola Scriptura would be valid, were it to be Scripture we defended and not our precepts.)

I believe I have but in any case, it really does us no good to say something is of value while admitting we don’t have much certainty of being able to extract the value from it-or suffciently agree what is of value and what is not.

But you too —in fact, all humans— defend what they believe until something they see or hear or think of convinces them otherwise.

Part of the reason for these forums is that very thing, to attempt to defend what one believes and to convince others of the worth of what one defends. It doesn't make absolute, anyone's understanding.

All true, but the basis of our beliefs should be rational, and I’ll maintain that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is irrational. Since the bible is often not at all perspicuous, and since we’re divorced by many centuries as well as by cultural differences from its authorship, and since very plausible disagreements are frequent over significant tenets based on Scripture alone, we simply need more than biblical exegesis. And the only rational alternative is that the early churches possessed and continuously passed on what was originally transmitted at the beginning, while guided by the Holy Spirit from the beginning.

 

[cornopean]

Been there, done that-over and over. We can both shake the dust off our feet-with the same frusrtation at why the other isn't comprehending. But that''s a daily occurence on these forums, mainly due to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura incidentally.

Catholics believe in sola scriptura too. You can't get around it. To deny it, you have to affirm it.

 

[fhansen]

Catholics believe in sola scriptura too. You can't get around it. To deny it, you have to affirm it.

not at all. The church teaches that there are two streams of revelation from God that we rely on, sacred scripture and sacred tradition, as interpreted and understood by the church that received them..

 

[Mark Quayle]

it really does us no good to say something is of value while admitting we don’t have much certainty of being able to extract the value from it-or suffciently agree what is of value and what is not.

Not so. That is similar in presumption as to say that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, it therefore makes no sound. God heard it. God is the source and assessor of value. We are not. We attend to the things of God, but we are no dealers in the goods.

but the basis of our beliefs should be rational, and I’ll maintain that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is irrational. Since the bible is often not at all perspicuous, and since we’re divorced by many centuries as well as by cultural differences from its authorship, and since very plausible disagreements are frequent over significant tenets based on Scripture alone, we simply need more than biblical exegesis. And the only rational alternative is that the early churches possessed and continuously passed on what was originally transmitted at the beginning, while guided by the Holy Spirit from the beginning.

The basis of our beliefs is faith; the rational reference is Scripture. Unlike many who protest, claiming that faith cannot be rational (nor irrational) but un-rational, I will admit quite happily that faith is usually rational, (though God can give faith to the mind that does not operate in the usual way, such as to an infant not yet born, or to the clinical idiot who can't construct concepts as we do, and to the insane who can't arrange their thoughts on the matter.)

But your claim seems to be that for the Bible to be authoritative, it must be [completely] understandable. That is irrational (snerk). We do what we can. Further, you seem to claim that what the church says is more understandable than Scripture, and apparently then, more rational. That is also irrational, if not downright blasphemous. Our words, short of God's actual plenary verbal inspiration, are poor representations of fact. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are truth.

 

[Valletta]

But your claim seems to be that for the Bible to be authoritative, it must be [completely] understandable. That is irrational (snerk). We do what we can. Further, you seem to claim that what the church says is more understandable than Scripture, and apparently then, more rational. That is also irrational, if not downright blasphemous. Our words, short of God's actual plenary verbal inspiration, are poor representations of fact. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are truth.

We are back to square one. God has authority, not a book. The Bible is a great asset to the Church, but remember that there was no Bible until the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s. The Apostles and their disciples did just fine without, and they did not hand over authority to a book.

 

[fhansen]

Not so. That is similar in presumption as to say that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, it therefore makes no sound. God heard it. God is the source and assessor of value. We are not. We attend to the things of God, but we are no dealers in the goods.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. We value it as we value its Author, as we recognize His voice in it: the voice of Truth and Wisdom, the Shepard's voice. And if the sound of the tree falling is what I need, IOW if revelation is what I need, then my coming to hear, understand, and value it is exactly what He wants.

The basis of our beliefs is faith; the rational reference is Scripture. Unlike many who protest, claiming that faith cannot be rational (nor irrational) but un-rational, I will admit quite happily that faith is usually rational, (though God can give faith to the mind that does not operate in the usual way, such as to an infant not yet born, or to the clinical idiot who can't construct concepts as we do, and to the insane who can't arrange their thoughts on the matter.)

all right, the basis of our faith is knowledge, i.e. revelation, along with the grace to believe it.

But your claim seems to be that for the Bible to be authoritative, it must be [completely] understandable. That is irrational (snerk)

and with this you're just evading the question. The Bible is valuable on its own of course- and as I stated- but it does us no good unless we understand it. Our understanding it, our gaining the knowledge that we lack on our own, is it's very purpose. So we don't just stand in awe and worship of the bible: we learn from it. I feel like I've just been repeating what should be quite obvious in this whole discussion.

 

[Clare73]

The Bible is a great asset to the Church, but remember that there was no Bible until the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s. The Apostles and their disciples did just fine without, and they did not hand over authority to a book.

There were the writings of the apostles to the churches, which circulated among the churches.

They were not without apostolic writings before the Canon.

 

[Clare73]

We are back to square one. God has authority, not a book.
The Bible is a great asset to the Church

Asset to the Church?
It is the absolute authority over the church!

Jesus is in serious disagreement with you.

He believed the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35).
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures). (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means.,"(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him,
Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to the OT Scriptures.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though the account is the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham still alive (John 8:39-40).

According to Jesus, the Word of God written enjoys absolute authority.

The Bible is a great asset to the Church, but remember that there was no Bible until the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s. The Apostles and their disciples did just fine without, and they did not hand over authority to a book.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. We value it as we value its Author, as we recognize His voice in it: the voice of Truth and Wisdom, the Shepard's voice. And if the sound of the tree falling is what I need, IOW if revelation is what I need, then my coming to hear, understand, and value it is exactly what He wants.
all right, the basis of our faith is knowledge, i.e. revelation, along with the grace to believe it.
and with this you're just evading the question. The Bible is valuable on its own of course- and as I stated- but it does us no good unless we understand it. Our understanding it, our gaining the knowledge that we lack on our own, is it's very purpose. So we don't just stand in awe and worship of the bible: we learn from it. I feel like I've just been repeating what should be quite obvious in this whole discussion.

I guess we are talking past each other. I give up.

 

[fhansen]

I guess we are talking past each other. I give up.

Don't give up. You'll get it . Sorry, again. But we're really not talking past each other. You're simply hanging on to something that has nothing of substance to hang on to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We are back to square one. God has authority, not a book. The Bible is a great asset to the Church, but remember that there was no Bible until the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s. The Apostles and their disciples did just fine without, and they did not hand over authority to a book.

Is the canon not closed? I don't know of any pope in the last 1900 years still adding letters to the Bible.

BTW, they did not do just fine without, but it needed written. Ask Paul about Peter and the Judaizers.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Don't give up. You'll get it . Sorry, again. But we're really not talking past each other. You're simply hanging on to something that has nothing of substance to hang on to.

Ok, then let me try this:

1) WHERE is the evidence that the church, complete with hierarchy, and supposed apostolic succession, has not migrated far from the original? I see little resemblance, except, perhaps, some sort of hero worship that was wrong even in the original.
2) How does the logic work, that somehow poor attendance to the meaning of the Word of God disqualifies the need for attendance to the Word of God? And how does not that apply also to attendance to the doctrines and authority of the church?
3) Did God not write the Bible? And in it does he not tell us in many different ways the authority of it? How do you suppose that subjective notions of God leading the church is even nearly as authoritative as the objective Word of God itself? And no, don't go back into our subjective understanding of it. I dealt with that in number 2.

Word of God. Substance.
Men. Not even on the same chart.

 

[Valletta]

"This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6: 50-51

Catholic Catechism 1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."

The breaking of the bread, the mass, continues on now as it has for almost 2000 years.

"Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood, one altar , as there is one bishop with the presbytery …" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1) Saint Ignatius of Antioch c. 110 A.D.

The Word of God has been transmitted to us orally and in written form. It is to be honored in either form. Jesus did not give Peter a detailed book of instructions, actually Jesus never mentioned that a book of God-breathed text was to be compiled, that came through the Catholic Church at a later time.

The decisions of the Church, such as Peter deciding Baptism replaced circumcision, or to meet on Sundays in honor of our Lord rising on the third day, might not carry the same weight with you, but they should. You have the books of the Bible by terms that you describe as "subjective," that is, those books were chosen by the Catholic Church with no written list of the books in the order of today provided by God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. We value it as we value its Author, as we recognize His voice in it: the voice of Truth and Wisdom, the Shepard's voice. And if the sound of the tree falling is what I need, IOW if revelation is what I need, then my coming to hear, understand, and value it is exactly what He wants.

You keep talking about how we value it. That is irrelevant to its value, and, whether you believe it or not, irrelevant as to its use. It will accomplish everything for which he sent it.

all right, the basis of our faith is knowledge, i.e. revelation, along with the grace to believe it.

Again you come at it from the POV of authority of mere creatures.

But, for whatever it is worth, (and it is worth a LOT, dealing with the very nature and meaning of the Gospel, though you may not think so), more specifically, the basis of our faith is Christ himself, not our comprehension (if that is what you meant by knowledge and revelation). Thus our faith is the product of the Spirit of God in us, which is the very grace to believe it.

and with this you're just evading the question. The Bible is valuable on its own of course- and as I stated- but it does us no good unless we understand it. Our understanding it, our gaining the knowledge that we lack on our own, is it's very purpose. So we don't just stand in awe and worship of the bible: we learn from it. I feel like I've just been repeating what should be quite obvious in this whole discussion.

It's very purpose is whatever purpose for which God sent it: to convict, to direct, to harden and to soften as God chooses (chose), and so on, including, yes, the knowledge. But also to correct, not just behavior, but to correct false doctrine. Authority. This is direct word from God, not from man. The "church" you seem to think is equal or above it, full of faults and presumption, must be governed by the Word, and not the other way around.

 

[Valletta]

It's very purpose is whatever purpose for which God sent it: to convict, to direct, to harden and to soften as God chooses (chose), and so on, including, yes, the knowledge. But also to correct, not just behavior, but to correct false doctrine. Authority. This is direct word from God, not from man. The "church" you seem to think is equal or above it, full of faults and presumption, must be governed by the Word, and not the other way around.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, He is not governed by a book. The Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible is not governed by the Bible, if that were the case the Catholic Church would have put in a preface ceding over power to the Bible.
The table of contents listing the books chosen by the Catholic Church is not part of Holy Scripture, yet you use most of the books and keep the same order chosen by the Catholic Church.
People on earth do have their faults and presumptions, the tares have not been pulled out, that is the way it was and is before, during the choosing of the books, and after the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible in the late 300s.

 

[fhansen]

You keep talking about how we value it. That is irrelevant to its value, and, whether you believe it or not, irrelevant as to its use. It will accomplish everything for which he sent it.

This is nonsense. God appeals to us. We can choose the light or the darkness. Otherwise there's no reason whatsoever for us to know anything, no reason for revelation, for the bible! He want us to come to "value" His word as He wants us to value Him. That's where our justice comes from, the justice that Adam forfeited, in our responding to and cooperating with Him, heeding His word now-daily. Anything else is putting the cart ahead of the horse: overthinking.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, He is not governed by a book. The Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible is not governed by the Bible, if that were the case the Catholic Church would have put in a preface ceding over power to the Bible.
People on earth do have their faults and presumptions, the tares have not been pulled out, that is the way it was and is before, during the choosing of the books, and after the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible in the late 300s.

So is your pope an apostle? Are his words God's words? By what authority is he established —a mere vote? Is the hierarchy God's way for apostleship?

And lest we get confused, anyway, THE CHURCH is the regenerated Elect, and not the RCC. The pope has no authority over my conscience. The Bible does.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is nonsense. God appeals to us. We can choose the light or the darkness. Otherwise there's no reason whatsoever for us to know anything, no reason for revelation, for the bible! He want us to come to "value" His word as He wants us to value Him. That's where our justice comes from, the justice that Adam forfeited, in our responding to and cooperating with Him, heeding His word now-daily. Anything else is putting the cart ahead of the horse: overthinking.

Of course we choose! Where did I say otherwise? Of course he wants us to value his Word! When did I say otherwise? I am saying that his Word is what it is regardless of what we think of it, and its authority is a fact whether we think of it that way or not. It is not defined by us.

Here is why I said we are talking past each other. You insist on the value of the human POV. I insist on the value of God's POV. You keep talking about the one, as if that is the only consideration. I know you know better than that, but there you keep going.

 

[fhansen]

1) WHERE is the evidence that the church, complete with hierarchy, and supposed apostolic succession, has not migrated far from the original? I see little resemblance, except, perhaps, some sort of hero worship that was wrong even in the original.

And that's your imagination working. The church isn't going to look exactly the same after 2000 yrs. And I have no idea about hero worship. The gift of infallibilty is just that, a gift, and one that many popes never even exercised. It can be accepted with humility, or with arrogance I suppose. And everytime a Sola Scriptura adherent speaks knowingly and confidently about what the bible has to say, they are doing nothing different from the pope and the magisterium in maintaining the correctness of their intepretation of revelation. Anyway, the evidence is that the Catholic church along with the EO, consistent with the ECFs, still teach the same basic doctrine on what it means to be right in the eyes of God and to remain there, among other doctrines. The Reformers strayed.

2) How does the logic work, that somehow poor attendance to the meaning of the Word of God disqualifies the need for attendance to the Word of God? And how does not that apply also to attendance to the doctrines and authority of the church?

It's good to attend to the word of God. It's best to understand it well while attending to it. That's what the church has always been about. The Bereans, studious as they were, still could not interpret the OT on their own without the help of Christ's disciple Paul. Same with the Ethopian Eunuch and Philip.

3) Did God not write the Bible? And in it does he not tell us in many different ways the authority of it? How do you suppose that subjective notions of God leading the church is even nearly as authoritative as the objective Word of God itself? And no, don't go back into our subjective understanding of it. I dealt with that in number 2.

Sorry, but just determining that the bible is from God is subjective. Its circular reasoning to maintain that its the word of God because it says it's the word of God. Somewhere along the line the person must begin to come to the realization that the word he's hearing is different: authoritative on matters that we cannot ascertain on our own, the voice of Truth from the Source of truth. Then we begin to trust its words. But what difference does that question even make here? Everyone in the Christian world beginning with the eastern and western churches and including Protestants, Mormons, and JWs agree that the bible is the Word of God.

 

[Clare73]

"This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6: 50-51
Catholic Catechism 1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."
The breaking of the bread, the mass, continues on now as it has for almost 2000 years.
"Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood, one altar , as there is one bishop with the presbytery …" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1) Saint Ignatius of Antioch c. 110 A.D.

The Word of God has been transmitted to us orally and in written form.
It is to be honored in either form.

All forms, oral, tradition, etc. must be in agreement with what is written to be authoritative for the church, for God does not contradict himself between forms.

And Jesus did not give Peter a detailed book of instructions, actually
Jesus never mentioned that a book of God-breathed text was to be compiled,

He also didn't mention that he would ascend to heaven.

that came through the Catholic Church at a later time.

Not quite. . .Christian authority assembled the circulating letters of the apostles and writers into one group and authorized them as canonical at a much later time. Meanwhile, the writings existed and were authoritative.

The decisions of the Church, such as Peter deciding Baptism replaced circumcision,

As we find in the writing of Paul (Colossians 2:11-12).

or to meet on Sundays in honor of our Lord rising on the third day,

as we find in the writing of Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2), as well as Luke during the time of apostles (Acts 20:7), who are our authority.

might not carry the same weight with you, but they should. You have the books of the Bible by terms that you describe as "subjective," that is, those books were chosen by the Catholic Church with no written list of the books in the order of today provided by God.

Those books didn't become the word of God by the authority of the Church,
those books were the word of God recognized by the Church, and separated from all other writings in disagreement with the apostles' writings.
The Church didn't make them the word of God, the Church separated them from those which were not the word of God according to apostolic writings.