JustAsIam77 said:
Brother you don't need to pray for me, I don't question the inerrancy of scripture read my post. Do you deny the man made doctrine of the RCC? Is the pope infallible? What traditional church do you identify with now?
Brother, sorry, I misunderstood your point. I do not deny the RCC has errant traditions and even dogmas that are of late development. The ‘catholic’ church, for example, never insisted on the Assumption of Mary as a point touching salvation. The Pope has made few proclamations from the ‘Chair of Peter’ and I believe he was likely in error when doing so.
The last question is a good question, one which I’ve been struggling to answer for myself. At the very root of it all I am still 100% a Calvinist, however, my Reformed theology is much broader now and I am seeking to reconcile it with scripture.
twin1954 said:
I think that you have left out the main ingredient, the Spirit of God. It is He who calls and equips men to know and preach the truth of the Bible.
I understand that brother, but all claim to have the Holy Spirit, even SDA’s, JW’s, Pentecostals, etc. The Holy Spirit guiding each person individually to arrive at contradictory conclusions is a recipe for disaster.
twin said:
Do you now believe that the Magistirum has the final authority on the Scriptures?
This really isn’t about Roman Catholicism. There are three branches of small ‘c’ catholicism as I understand it; Roman, Eastern Orthodoxy and yes, Anglicanism. I believe some Lutheran bodies still have apostolic succession so, perhaps, Lutheranism maybe considered catholicism, broadly speaking. The last two branches of catholicism have reformed to scripture while maintaining Catholic Christian practices of worship and leadership.
nonaeroterraqueous said:
They don't expressly deny inerrancy, but when, as in the numerous cases in the Catholic church, scripture directly contradicts their tradition, they "interpret" scripture according to their tradition. This interpretation is no interpretation when it overrides the clear meaning of scripture. What it means is that they hold tradition as the higher of the two standards. In other words, when scripture clearly says that they are wrong, they ignore it and continue doing what they were already doing. This is not the treatment one gives to something regarded as inerrant.
Contrary to the Catholic argument, we also do not regard the layman as having the authority to be his own personal pope. They may find this hard to believe, and, it would appear that you are having difficulty, also. The contention is not whether the layman has the authority to be his own pope, but, rather, we argue that the pope has no authority to be a pope. We have one mediator, who is Christ, and we have one guide and comforter, who is the Holy Spirit. All men are laymen. Some are teachers. Some are preachers. We have much to learn from each other. None are pope.
This miter-hatted figure who proposes to be a mediator between us and God, who would interpret plain truths to mean what they clearly do not mean is a man who bears much fruit, and this fruit does not resemble holiness. The abuses of the Catholic patriarchy are numerous and span all of history. When our people questioned him, we were killed. One must ask who in their right mind would regard this kind of person, this regime, this system as qualified to interpret scripture against our own senses? I, for one, don't need to be told that I am not qualified to be a pope. I rather hope that I never qualify.
Brother non, we all interpret scripture according to our tradition. Some are traditionally Reformed and Confessional, others have a Baptist tradition, we all choose some kind of tradition by which we interpret scripture. I believe the layman has the right to read and understand scripture but scripture itself was never apart from the church. It exists within the church and is used by the church, it’s not for the individual alone, but for the corporate body of believers. Again, this isn’t about Roman Catholicism but small ‘c’ catholicism.
Apologetic_Warrior said:
From the beginning to today, it's always been the leading of the Spirit of God. The canon originated from the mind and Spirit of God, it is God's canon, his hand in history. Christ the head of the Church is the head of the canon. Without the head, what can the body do but nothing? Only walking by faith in the Spirit has the Church ever functioned. Through reading Paul's letters, it becomes clear the Church struggled to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh from the earliest of New Testament times. However it is God, through the sovereign grace and mercy of His providence of the leading of the Spirit in God's people who faithfully preserved and maintained the oral and written Word of God throughout history.
The upper room, the Spirit of God raining down on his people is a key point and time for the New Testament Church.
As to before, this Psalm of David comes to mind...
Psalms 51
1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin!
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit.
ESV
AW, I get it, completely. But this assumes, presupposes a closed canon. It begins by accepting the hard work already done in the early church by the Fathers. It assumes the catholic (small ‘c’ not Roman Catholic exclusively) New Testament canon. How do you know the Bible you have in your hand is the word of God? Without a divine table of contents you are assuming a traditional canon.
twin1954 said:
JM, I have a few questions for you.
1 Which are truly descended from the Apostles Roman Catholics or Baptists
Over the last 25 years I’ve worked in a library and have had a chance to read widely. Based on my reading I would say Roman Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as some Lutheran bodies have apostlic succession. God uses other men, obviously, for His glory even outside this succession.
2 If you take away all that is Baptist from all the other denominations aren't you left with Roman Catholicism?
I think I answered that one above but I would like to point out Baptists came into existence during the 1600’s. We can actually point to a time when the Baptist church was formed and when it was rejected by other Christians.
3 If you Take away all that is Roman Catholic from those denominations aren't you left with Baptists?
You would be left with the most Protestant group, the most radical, Amish and Mennonite.
4 Which is the Biblical and true Gospel the Roman Catholic or the Baptist?
Both contain the Gospel with difference emphasis. I am 100% a Calvinist, I don’t see that would ever change, but I am able to recognize that other denominations preach the Gospel with more or less clarity.
5 Doesn't the Mass re-crucify Christ every time it is spoken?
Not to my knowledge, no. The Mass present the one time sacrifice of Christ, the Body and Blood, to those taking part.
CCC1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
I have not taken part in the Mass only observed, but at least the real presence of Christ is taught. This is a ‘c’atholic doctrine believed by the earliest Christians. Transubsation was not but the real presence was absolutely believed by the earliest Christians. I believe the following to represent the catholic view as I’ve come to understand it. Notice, “eat the flesh” and “drink his blood.” This is Calvin’s doctrine, it is scriptural and believed by the early church.
“Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.”
6 Does the Scripture tell us to go to a priest and confess (Auricular Confession) and receive absolution through penance?
Confess one to another, yes. A general confession is the practice of the ‘c’atholic church.
John 20:21-2321 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2 Cor. 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
7 Do the Scriptures teach 7 Sacraments that are to gain us salvation and entrance into the Roman Church? 8 Does the Spirit guide all believers into all truth or only a select group of men called the Magisterium?
I’m not dealing with Roman Catholicism in particular. It would be be to ask in the Roman Catholic forum. I’m trying to answers questions that deal with small ‘c’ catholicism.
9 Does the tradition of men override the Scriptures?
The church does not contradict scripture. It can’t, it’s the church. There is a misconception of what Luther, Calvin, etc. were trying to do and that is reform Roman Catholicism to its earliest roots. Catholics in general, specifically Anglican and Lutheran, view scripture as the regulative means by which we gleam doctrine. “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Where catholics different from the more radical side of the Reformation is in worship, where the church refers to history and tradition.
10 Is justification through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ or by entrance into the Roman Catholic Church?
Justification is through Christ alone by faith.
God bless,
jm
