Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[sculleywr]

Heard this all before. I don't buy what you're selling.

And yet you have nothing to refute it with. All you have is the foil of Roman Catholicism, and so when that foil fails, all you have left is personal preference. No logical reason to not accept it. Just "I don't buy what you're selling".

Well I'm not selling anything. I'm describing reality. Innovation in doctrine is not possible without the belief in either the Roman Catholic teaching of doctrinal development or Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura, however, allows for much faster innovation than anything in Christian history. The proof is in the pudding. Thousands of denominations that agree on nothing other than the idea that Scripture is the authority they base their belief on. And I say IDEA because in reality they all base it on their personal traditions unconsciously. Every single Protestant comes to the Scripture with preconceptions that they are not even aware of, things they have been taught their whole lives and take for granted, that they will never think to give up because they are assumed to be true. Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians at least have the knowledge ahead of time that they use traditions. We openly and freely admit to it. Protestants, by not admitting to it, become entrapped by those traditions.

 

[sculleywr]

Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

I have asked Catholics this and they can't. Maybe you can.

The Canon, because without the Canon, there is no definition of what Scripture is.

And don't tell me there is a Scriptural Canon in Scripture. There is no inspired table of contents that was delivered to John when he finished Revelation (or the gospel of John, which I've been told by some teachers might be his actual last writing. It's irrelevant which is last, though). There isn't even a list of criteria in Scripture to determine what Scripture is, and if there was, you'd still have the same problem of confirming that the list itself is in a scriptural book.

The reason for this is, for instance, the same as the problem of the Original Mover logic. If, for instance, you say that Peter confirms that Paul's letters are Scripture, then the question becomes how do you know that the letters of Peter are Scripture? If you say because they are in agreement with the Old Testament, then how do you know the Old Testament to be Scripture? The challenge can keep going until you have gone through the list of every single book in the Bible, with the challenge being the same for every book: How do you know that _____ is Scripture? Eventually, you have to go to an outside authority, and the choices are the Canons of the Traditional churches (including what is incorrectly called the Deuterocanon or the apocrypha) or the canon of the Protestant churches. You could also go with whatever list of books you personally choose, a la JW or Mormon canons.

The problem with your question, however, is that it is a loaded question. It presumes that the Oral Tradition isn't intimately comingled with the Written Tradition. But the Written Tradition was born from the Oral Tradition. Asking for a tradition that is necessary for salvation that won't be found in Scripture is as loaded a question as asking you which singular interpretation of Scripture is THE correct interpretation of Scripture. It pigeonholes you into either admitting you don't know which one is correct or into making pretty much the same claim that Orthodox and Roman Catholics make about Tradition in relation to your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Asking a question like that shows that you don't really understand what Tradition is.

 

[sculleywr]

Is the "canon" a tradition/teaching passed down from Christ? Is it a teaching of Christ that is absent from the Bible? An unanswered claim by sculleywr was the discussion. He argued that Jesus taught more than what was recorded in our scripture/canon. I just ask for one simple example of something that Jesus taught that is required for salvation and is not stated in scripture. I argue for a point, not just to "win" an argument.

Samir, your answer is just asinine. It skirts the point of the question in the most legalistic way. You fail to defend your belief.

If the canon is the only "tradition" you can come up with, then there is no difference between SS and Catholics.

Samir, You follow SS.

Without the Canon, you wouldn't have Scripture. No, the Apostles didn't have it. No, Christ didn't teach it.

I explained, however, why the question is, to use your word, asinine. You ask asinine questions, you're going to get asinine answers.

If one must be able to access Scripture to find what is needed for salvation, then the Canon is necessary for salvation, because one cannot access Scripture if one does not know what Scripture is. It's like thinking that Alexander Fleming would have been able to invent the field of antibiotics without first discovering that penicillium existed. If he hadn't discovered that penicillium mold, he wouldn't have been able to isolate the penicillin the mold creates in order to produce the antibiotic that started the field. In this case, the Canon is the penicillium mold. No mold means no penicillin. In the same way, no Canon means no Scripture. It means this not because the Scripture isn't there, but because without a way to isolate it, it cannot be useful.

Well, at least in a Sola Scriptura world the Scriptures themselves cannot be useful without being isolated. Sola Scriptura churches never had to survive without a Canon of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Oral tradition through Papal decrees, theologians' speculations, folklore, pious legends, etc is part and parcel of the religious institution.

If you agree on certain aspects of oral tradition as I do, then we should not confuse people or try to give credit to oral tradition, rather we should say it is biblical instruction.

Then perhaps it should be oral TRANSMISSION. I have tended to say tradition when responding to other people who used the word that way, apparently to refer to the act of passing along Scriptural information by word of mouth. Doing that is not what "Holy Tradition" means, of course.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Our exchange has become so long that i have responded to it in sections. Which response to your overall fallacious attacks and defense of Catholicism took my arthritic fingers and other pains and activities days to write, by the grace of God.

Part 1.

RCC and OC believes that too.

Not according to what Peter is describing in context, which is not that of salvation beginning with the act baptism making one good enough to go to Heaven, and ending with becoming good enough to go to Heaven in purgatory. Which will be explained further on.

Baptism is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5, John 3:5).

You are reading as certainty what you want/need to into texts. John 3:5 does not speak of baptism, but of being born of the Spirit. And Christian baptism requires His death, and that had not happened yet in Jn. 3, while the baptism of John was not Christian baptism.

Titus 3:5 does not speak of baptism but of not being saved, " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5).

As shown, while regeneration and salvation is promised to those who will repent and be baptized, (Acts 2:28; Mk. 16:16) since this requires and testifies to such as having true faith, yet Peter also preached that the washing of sins was obtained by such faith as would be expressed in baptism, (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) See below.
In short, baptism can be the occasion of coming to faith, but it is by personal repentant faith that the heart is purified, and which clearly can preceded baptism.

Acts 10:43-47 is about the gift of tongues.

Wrong and absurd, but such dismissal is needed in order to support your defense of Catholicism. Tongues was confirmatory of the washing of regeneration, but Peter clearly preached the gospel to them saying,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

Nothing was said about baptism to those lost (Acts 11:14) souls, but who manifestly did believe, as "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." (Acts 10:44) Thus the conclusion, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18)

And in recounting Acts 10:43-47, Peter plainly states,

Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

Thus it is simply incontrovertible that Acts 10:43-47 is about conversion of lost souls, of the washing of regeneration occurring before baptism. And which alone is consistent with the teaching elsewhere such as that

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

Peter didn't give a sermon to babies in Acts 2:38.

No one ever manifestly gave a sermon to babies, as they cannot repent. Your response only confirms what i said.

Those passages are addressing adult converts.

There are not two gospels, and Peter plainly stated that repentant faith was a requirement for baptism, and it is the faith behind it by which the heart is purified.

And in Acts 2:38 Peter does not say that the act of baptism effects regeneration as per Rome, but that if they will repent and be baptized, which signifies effectual believing, then they would received gift of the Holy Spirit.

And which was/is the "promise of the Holy Ghost" that the apostles had received, (Acts 2:33,39) and which the company of the Gentiles received before baptism. (Acts 11:17) But which you tried to reduce to being about the gift of tongues, versus prebaptismal conversion by faith which is expressed in baptism.

Faith and repentance are necessary for adults to receive grace in baptism but a lack of faith is not an impediment to receiving grace in an infant or young child.

There simply is no teaching on baptism that requires repentant faith for some but not for others, as you must make Scripture to teach. Believing is always required for conversion and baptism, which even some very young children are capable of. You can only wish that the Holy Spirit had manifestly shown infants being baptized, but he never does, despite His faithfulness in supplying other needed details, leaving Caths to read this into household baptisms.

And it is being culpable of sin is what condemns a soul, judgment being "according to their works", not merely possessing a sinful nature from Adam via conception by becoming human, which flesh dies at death.

In addition, unbelievers can also receive grace, but that does not translate into violating God's order and requirements.

The RCC believes this too. Trent clearly states that converts are justified at conversion by grace thru faith apart from works.

Of course they must support being saved by pure grace/not works for converts, but even then it is by a magical ritual which makes the subject good enough to be with God, which means he must become practically perfect thru purgatory in order to enter Heaven. More on this later on.

The issue is believing on Him that who purifies the convert by faith, and justifieth the ungodly, so that "his faith is counted for righteousness," (Rm. 4:5) and thus spiritually is made to sit together with Christ in Heaven, and whose spirit will directly go to be with Him after death, (Lk. 23:42,43; Acts 7:59; 20:6; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23,34; 1Ths. 4:17) and with works justifying one as having true faith, being saved.

In contrast to which is being declared righteousness because he actually has become good enough to enter Heaven, and thus must attain that state after death if he has not done so by death, ans thus is said to have truly merited eternal life.
More on this later on as dealing with Trent.

There are numerous passages throughout scripture that clearly state justification can be lost.

True, due to unbelief, (Acts 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12,14; 10:25-39) which is evidenced by what they do.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4)

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. (Hebrews 10:38)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Part 2.

The word presbuteros means presbyter or priest. The NT refers to priests engaging in sacerdotal functions (James 5:13-16 is one of many).

A blatant fallacy.

The word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdotes" for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros.

The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

However, etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable). The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of unique sacerdotal distinction for NT presbyteros.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.


Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."


"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

How is asking a Christian in Heaven to pray for you any different than asking a Christian on Earth to pray for you?

How is it that a common practice which the Holy Spirit nowhere exampled - except by pagans - despite providing approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and who only instructed believers to pray to God in Heaven ("call upon the Lord," "Our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother" or angel), can be justified because mortals copy pagans and justify it based upon the premise that communications btwn souls in the earthy realm must be able to fully transcend the earth/Heaven division, as God can?

That in all this the Holy Spirit would not example or exhort prayer to created beings, despite having plenty of angels to pray to in the OT, in addition to ascended believers in the NT. Which alone should be enough to manifest that doing so is not God's will, or at the least does not warrant requiring assent as a doctrine.

If such is not reason enough against this presumptuous Scripturally contrary and novel practice, consider that Christ is the only Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) who alone is said to engage in unceasing intercession, and in dealing with access to God, believers are exhorted to look to Christ as the uniquely sufficient intercessory high priest,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)

And that by his blood they have direct access into the holy of holies , the throne of God. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (Hebrews 10:19)

And that being able to hear all earthly prayer from Heaven is a uniquely Divine attribute, while from what i find then two-way communication btwn beings from Heaven and those on earth required both to somehow be in the same realm, and personal, and in the spiritual dimension were one on one ("the angel that talked with me" etc.).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Part 3

That's not RCC teaching. Baptism is an instrument God uses to provide grace, not something a person does to become good enough to be with God.

Then you must consider what "provide grace" means, which is that,

by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism...who are born again, there is nothing that God hates;...are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. (The Council of Trent - Session 5, CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN)

Thus as said, the act of baptism (RC sprinkling) is held as making one good enough to be with God.

The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace [in baptism], which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar... (Catholic Encyclopedia > Sanctifying Grace)

For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God as efficient cause (causa efficiens) and merited by Christ as meritorious cause (causa meritoria), become an interior sanctifying quality or formal cause (causa formalis) in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Justification)

Which state one must have at death to be fit to enter Heaven - even if by cleansing of Original Sin:

Final perseverance, in its most perfect sense, consists in the untarnished preservation of baptismal innocence until death. In a less strict sense it is the preservation of the state of grace from the last conversion until death. ( Catholic Encyclopedia > Actual Grace)

Which means the act of RC sprinkling renders one holy enough to enter Heaven if such died before sinning. However, in Roman Catholicism forgiveness and "infused charity" (which baptism also is said to effect) is actually not enough for one to enter Heaven, for in addition to needing to atone for sins which one has not suffered enough for on earth, then one must attain perfection of character to enter Heaven, for which purpose the suffering of Purgatory exists, even though perfection of character requires growth in grace via the testings this life offers, and not simply suffering.

For by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Thus RC professor and apologist Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." RC professor/apologist Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

The problem of sending newly baptized to Heaven, though "concupiscence" remains, while requiring one die as one who has conquered that is a problem for theologians.

But it remains that rather than able to be with God as one purified and justified by effectual faith which is counted as righteousness as Abraham was, and which are sanctified as new creations by regeneration, (1Co. 6:11), and with fruits that attest to this faith, instead in order be with God then one must become practically purified, to become perfect in character.

And which separates believers into two classes, only one being formally called "saints."

What's wrong with recognizing saints among believers?

Do not change my objection. What's wrong with recognizing saints as a distinctive class of believers? Because the Holy Spirit never does, but uses saints and believers interchangeably.

And who are taught that, being justified by the good works that they do in Christ, they can be said to have truly merited eternal life. (Trent)

That's what scripture teaches too. See Matt 25 and John 5:28. Keep in mind Trent is referring to final justification, not initial justification and works only merit eternal life because of Jesus' promise to reward those who do good.

Matt 25 and John 5:28 and such refers to believers whose faith is such that it produces the effects which correspond to Christ (we obey whom we really believe in), whom God rewards under grace, not because they "truly merit" eternal life, which is a gift.

From Trent, Session 6:..
"life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits."

...-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life"

"CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

They key word is "own works," versus "works done in God," thereby allowing Rome to basically and effectually teach that, apart from initial justification, salvation by grace thru merit, that by the grace of God man truly merits eternal life, and which necessitates purgatorial perfection if one has not attained to perfection before that. Which in essence is justification as under the Law, that of man actually meriting justification by attaining the level of obedience necessary to be with God, except that more grace is given to attain to that perfection.

If Trent is simply saying that one is accounted to have true faith in the light of his works, and fit to be rewarded under grace, because God has chosen to reward believers for doing what He alone deserves credit for, since it is He who convicts, grants, and enables and motivates faith and obedience, then that would not be the same as having "truly merited" the gift of eternal life, but which distinction must be made clear, which I do not see Trent doing, since the natural disposition of man is to presume he will be found worthy of eternal life by basically being good enough, with some mercy expected.

Meanwhile, perhaps the clearest statement that a RC merits eternal life is that of Trent's canon 32, which teaches (by condemning those who oppose it) that one is justified by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, and truly merits eternal life.

It is one thing to say that one is accounted/judged to have eternal life due to works which testify to true faith, which faith God rewards - although in reality what the believer truly deserves is damnation, not the gift of eternal life - (Heb. 10:35) and it is another to say that one truly merits eternal life because he has done such works and attained unto perfection of character.

More can be said on this, but please see the faith vs. works issue dealt with in post 914 rather than saying more here.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Part 4

The RCC clearly condemns sodomy and abortion as grave sins.

Which is according to official profession, which in Scriptuire what one does and effects testifies to what they truly belive.

But regardless, rather than that countering what i said, this official stance makes Rome even more culpable for counting even prosodomite proabortion public figures as members in life and in death, and not effectually disciplining such.

What makes you think veneration is worship? I see a clear difference.

You mean you see souls in Scripture kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them, without being idolaters or blasphemers?

And see this study for refuting that Cath veneration is not worship based on a sppsd difference btwn hyperdula and latria.

I'm a Protestant so I don't think so.

From what we have seen you are far more Catholic than Protestant.

I mean they think morals and obeying God's commandments, while encouraged, are optional. Do you think it's necessary for salvation or just an optional suggestion?

By now it should have been obvious that I contend that it is necessary to have fruits of repentant faith, "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) if it is to be judged as being salvific.

" Catholicism and scripture says following Jesus is necessary. "Evangelicals" say it's optional and many prefer to not follow Jesus and just believe hoping that will save them."

Wrong as an overall or absolute statement, and quite the contrary, as seen by survey after survey, and election after election. You want to defend Catholicism based on what its historical teaching says, but ignore what it does and effectually teaches (which Scripture says is what shows what one true believes" Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20), while you only condemn Protestantism (which is too broad a term to be meaningful) including evangelicals based upon your (obviously very limited) experience, but ignore evidence to the contrary, and that of classical teaching. Or you even attack what clearly teaches that faith must have works (as with the Luther quotes), which indicates you have vendetta that disallows objectivity.

Go read some of classic evangelical commentaries, like Matthew Henry, Barnes. Clarke, Gill, JFB, etc, and you will see saving faith as that which accepts Christ as Lord, and holiness taught/exhorted as a necessary fruit of faith.

"It is not enough for salvation without the benevolent and holy acts to which it would prompt...Faith is not and cannot be shown to be genuine, unless it is accompanied with corresponding acts..." (Albert Barnes, James 2:17)

No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, James 2:17)

Christ never will own those who yield themselves up [impenitently] to be the servants of sin. And it is not enough that we cease to do evil, but we must learn to do well. Our conversation will always be answerable to the principle which guides and governs us, Rom_8:5. We must set ourselves in earnest to mortify the deeds of the body, and to walk in newness of life. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, on Galatians 5:16-21)

Your pretending to have faith, while you have no works of charity or mercy, is utterly vain: for as faith, which is a principle in the mind, cannot be discerned but by the effects, that is, good works; he who has no good works has, presumptively, no faith.
(Adam Clarke, James 2:18)

"They [who engage in "envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like") thin are not children of God, and therefore cannot inherit the kingdom which belongs only to the children of the Divine family." (Adam Clarke, on Galatians 5:21)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam_2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons..." (Gill on James 2:17)

"...they that do such works of the flesh as before enumerated; that is, that live in the commission of these things, whose whole lives are employed in such work, living and dying in such a state, without repentance towards God and faith in Christ, shall never enjoy eternal life..." (Gill on Galatians 5:21)

"So Bengel, “If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence;.. (Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown on James 2:17)

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord,.... Receiving Christ is believing in him:...so that this is not a receiving him into the head by notion, but into the heart by faith; and not in part only, but in whole: faith receives a whole Christ, his person as God and man; him in all his offices...these Colossians had received Christ gladly, joyfully, willingly, and with all readiness; and especially as "the Lord", on which there is a peculiar emphasis in the text (Gill on Colossians 2:6)

The teaching that no sin will separate a believer from God is a license to sin.

It can be, yet not it is contradicted in the light of the overall history of those who held to OSAS (though it is wrong), and instead it is a low view of Scripture that testifies to correlate to lax morality. Meanwhile there is little difference btwn Caths and the world in many moral views.

This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a denial made without reference to any specific objective rule, which is just the opposite of what Luther is doing.

"Believers cannot help doing good works. What about believers who don't do good works? No true believer cannot help doing good works. Luther can't even define what it means to have faith. "

Then you are not reading or refuse to read what Luther clearly taught. How can you fail to see that such teaching that, "Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever" means faith is belief that which effects obedience toward its object, and that believers who don't do good works are simply not believers. As also stated in such teachings as:

"faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present.." "there is no faith where there are no good works." 'Here we have it stated that where the works are absent, there is also no Christ." "...if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings.."

The Protestants I know who live in sin all consider themselves to be believers.

Talk about logical fallacies as warranting a conclusion. This is of no more weight than my saying that "the Catholic I know who live in sin all consider themselves to be believers," which even if true, does not mean the belief system is at fault.

So believers who don't become a new creature and obey God's commandments are not true believers? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy again.

They are not true believers and you are engaging in a fallacious no true Scotsman fallacy again. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Your one-sided flinging of charges and judgment of evangelicals testifies to being so driven by a agenda that it requires this.

The problem with that is faith is often alone in people I've met and their pastor's all convinced them they are saved.

So we are back to arguing based on your conclusive personal limited experience.

" No where does scripture ever say faith always results in love and good works. In that were true, then verses about final justification (Matt 25, John 5:28) would be based on faith, not works."

Scripture does teach faith always characteristically results in love and good works. (Heb. 6:9,10; 1Ths. 1:4-10)

In that were true, then verses about final justification (Matt 25, John 5:28) would be based on faith, not works

No, as being rewarded for works testifies to effectual faith, which is rewarded.
Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)

The problem is the premise that faith always results in godliness is completely false especially when faith is watered down to just believing one verse of scripture (Rom 10:9).

The problem is not with the premise since it rejects faith being watered down to just believing one verse of scripture, as in believing merely meaning intellectual assent. Which would be like a person saying they believed in vegetarianism while eating at steak houses. Rm. 10:9 specified "Lord Jesus," not Santa Claus.

They have it backwards. Good works that show a love for God cannot be done without justifying faith but that doesn't mean everyone who has faith will love God and choose to do good. That's one of the fundamental errors within popular Protestantism and the reason easy believism is so common among Protestants. Everyone thinks they have faith and they all think their works are good and according to their pastor's teaching they are saved.

How are you being consistent? If not everyone who has faith will characteristically love God and thus choose to do good then how can your polemical "Protestantism" be guilty of easy believism for holding that true faith need not be a faith that effects obedience?

Moreover, what kind of faith in any religion does not effect actions in accordance with what the Object of faith requires, including repentance when convicted of not doing so?

"The "works" necessary are always defined ambiguously such that every non-believer can say he does good works too. "

It is you who is being ambiguous and your constant rant in flinging such charges sounds makes you like one who has a personal vendetta. As for Scripture, does such a text as "this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Ephesians 5:5) sound ambiguous?

That's correct. It has not changed.

Another bare assertion that is contrary to the substantiated facts.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

I agree with this and believe it is the teaching of scripture. Separating oneself from the body of Christ is a grave sin against the love of God because it is a rejection of the Church he founded

Once again both wrong and not being consistent if you are. For this bombastic statement places all (including "heretics" which the heretical RC church regarded all Prots as) who are not in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" - which you are not if you claim to be a Protestant - into everlasting fire, and makes the spiritual body of Christ as only being the same as the organic Roman Catholic church.

In reality only the mystical body of Christ, into which all believers are immersed by the Spirit at conversion, (1Cor. 12:13) is the only true church for it always and only consists 100% of true believers, while the organic bodies inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, and the church of Rome (and liberal Prot churches) in particular is as the gates of Hell for multitudes.

In contradiction to this Vatican 2 teaching (despite its often ambiguity and competing influences) affirmed (properly) baptized Prots as being members of the body of Christ and (separated) brethren of Catholics:

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (CCC 838)

"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..." (CCC 818, 819)

"..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio

A person who refuses to remain in the body of Christ won't be saved

But the body of Christ which He purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and is married to, (Eph. 5:25) is not restricted to any one particular organic church. To suppose it is relegates one as a cultist, or as one guilty of the sectarian spirit which the Lord reproved by affirming one who was manifestly doing ministry in His name but who was not part of the apostolic company. (Lk. 9:49,50)

Keep in mind that schismatics are people who were in the visible body of Christ who chose to abandon the Church. Protestants who were never in the Church are not schismatics and are not responsible for the schism of the Reformers.

It would thus apply the SSPX and SSPV Catholics, while it dams all she considers to be "heretics which was Prots and do not remain in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Your only negative denigration of Protestants while bending over backwards to defend Rome once again impugns your claim to be a Protestant, much less an evangelical. We do not need such.

I haven't finished studying the papacy so I can't comment on these quotes.

What is it that you need to learn about this? This bombastic blurb was and is considered an infallible statement by many RCs, and certainly requires all to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and which the NT church was not. See some history from Catholic and other sources here by God's grace.

"When I say Catholics follow the biblical gospel I mean they teach that faith and works are necessary for salvation and that justification can be lost."

And since Reformers and multitudes of Prots teach that the only kind of faith that saves is that which produces characteristic obedience to Christ, in basic doctrine and morals, and which evangelicals (yet) testify to being more unified in supporting than those whom Catholicism and liberal Protestantism counts as members;

And since many evangelicals reject OSAS (such as http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/eternal-security.htm), while Rome effectually infers that even Ted Kennedy type Catholics will finally attain Heaven due to their baptism and the merits of Rome (and their own), then you have such Protestants being more Catholic than Rome effectually is.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The reason for this is, for instance, the same as the problem of the Original Mover logic. If, for instance, you say that Peter confirms that Paul's letters are Scripture, then the question becomes how do you know that the letters of Peter are Scripture? If you say because they are in agreement with the Old Testament, then how do you know the Old Testament to be Scripture? The challenge can keep going until you have gone through the list of every single book in the Bible, with the challenge being the same for every book: How do you know that _____ is Scripture?.

A very good question, and the answer is (as i have started before but was ignored) by the same means that souls correctly discerned men and writings of God as being so before there was a Catholic church which presumed it was essential to assuredly know this.

How is it that the very OT writings which the NT depended upon to validate Truth claims had become held as Scripture? And if such were, then in principle it supports more writings being held as being so, and thus the establishment of a canon.

Or is it your premise, as it is with RCs, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

 

[Berean777]

Jesus NEVER once condemned tradition. He only condemned the Pharisees man-made traditions that contradicted sacred tradition. God's word say to follow sacred tradition, not ignore or despise it.

The Pharisees were equivalent to the church institution you claim is infallible. The Pharisees were from the exact mindset and breed. Jesus was against the establishment of what was alleged to be the church in that time.

Glad you asked. Jesus said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church in Matthew 16. If Jesus isn't enough for you, the ECF Tertullian provided an excellent proof of it in his Prescription against Heretics which I recommened all Protestants and other heretics read if they care about the truth.

This message is not to your religious institution. The message is relevant to the Ekklesia that stood around Jesus then. The words addressed them only as they had the important message to deliver and the faith to establish. Jesus tells them to not tell any man and that after he is killed raised and ascends into heaven then those standing with him who see those events will not taste death. In other words the gates of hell didn't prevail agaibst the 1st century Ekklesia as they were able to deliver the good news of the gospel and to establish the faith. How you or your institution infers this declaration to a church outside of the context of situation and context of 1st century Ekklesia culture is pulling the context right out, that us collapsing the context.

If you can't prove your books are endorsed and authorized by the same 1st century eye witnesses who saw, who heard and who touched the Word and transmitted to the bishops in the churches they founded, then I can't accept your claim no more than I can't accept the Gnostics and their books.

I must therefore reject your written tradition as it is grounded solely on hearsay from non endorsed sources since you reject the church and her authority.

I haven't written anything. I simply accept the 1st hand testimoney of witnesss who were there, like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you saying that Matthew didn't write Matthew and Mark didn't write Mark and do on?

Your biships are not witnesses, neither am I, or you or your institution. The Ekklesia of the 1st century are the witnesses who can legally write witness statements, like the Acts of the Apostles. Your bishop, you, I or your institution if adding to these witness statements extra biblical content are not endorsed nor authorised to do so. What we say outside of these witness statements is hearsay. That is why any oral tradition that claims to be an authorised extension to the 1st hand witness testimonies of 1st century apostles must there prove it, for the burden of proof is on them because they are the ones making outlandish extra biblical claims outside of the 1st witness accounts.

As for your definition of the word Gnostic, this would fit those people who make claims outside of the 1st hand witness statements as if they are in the know of some special knowledge as compared to the rest of us. If a religious institution makes authoritative extra biblical claims that are not verified by 1st century witnesses then these claims form the gnosis definition.

I am not claiming soecial knowledgr, your church institution is and in doing so extra biblical oral tradition is by definition gnosis.

Post your first hand witness that says the book of Hebrews and the Revelation of St John the Divine is scripture

Again your not making sense friend. The idea you present is that Matthew didn't write Matthew and John didn't write John and that somehow I need to prove to you that they did. Listen it is agreed by concensus from the number of manuscripts and scholars that they are witness statements of those 1st century apostolic witnesses, therefore what is there to prove.

Your arguments are circular reasoninh and beg belief. You spent all your time making the authority of your bishop and institutional hierarchy owing to your infallible institution more credible than the 1st century apostolic witnesses or you may be claiming that the bishops have special gnosis powers to know things that we lay people don't know. Either way you accreditation of your bishops to be the ones able to compile books or interpret them is along the same saying Jesus gave to the Pharisees.......

39You studycthe Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 39You studycthe Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

So Jesus instructs people to come to him to recieve life for he is the way the life and the truth and no one comes to the Father except through him.
Now your religious institution accredits itself a go between man in order to get to Jesus in the same way the Pharisees set themselves up through their religious institution.

How can one distinguish between your religious institution and the Pharisical one if you both setup the institution as a go between man.

Jesus charged the Pharisees and their institution as follows......

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

The name of the game is to establish a one to one personal relationship with Jesus. Any religious institution setting itself up as an obstacle or middle man is thereby preventing direct access to Jesus. To prevent direct access to Jesus means that the religious institution is claiming it is the way the truth and the life, in other words it clsims to be Jesus himself or in his place.

We know that no were in the first habd witness statements do apostles teach this doctrine and to do so would be diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ who says let the children cone to me and prevent them not.

 

[Berean777]

For those who find it difficult to accept, Jesus was anti-religious establishment. The Jews even today label him and his disciples as revolutionaries who sought to pull people away from the Ekklesia authority who had set itself up as the middle man.

Jesus came to free us from the bondage of a religious institution that promoted itself as the way the truth and the life.

Imagine if Jesus came in our time and we were the Jews who revered the religious establishment and some even defended it. What would you do if Jesus opposed your hierarchy, that is your popes/patriarchs, bishops and so forth?

Would you hate him?
Would you fight him?
Would you carry your cross and join him?

What would you do?

Imagine if he said to you that he is the way the truth and the life, would you follow him and leave your religious institution?

How you answer these questions regardless whether you live now or lived 2000 years ago determines which faith you follow.

If you follow Jesus, then there is no middle man asking you to follow him or their religious institution. So you will either follow the apostolic faith or the Pharisical and be a persecutor like Paul once was.

Something to think and reflect upon because whether you live today or 2000 years ago, the mindset to make a choice is still the same regardless of context of time or context of situation.

Jesus came to free us and told us to move away from following man made religious establishments and to follow him.

This does not mean that you abandon your religious establishment, rather fix yourself on Jesus rather than idolising the religious establishment that the today's Pharisees would have you to do.

Let your heart be joined as one to Jesus and stop idolising outwardly a worldly temple that is established on paper and made known to the world by a name that brings honour to its self. Rather worship your Lord and establish the one to one relationship with him. Don't expect your religious institution to do it for you, do it yourself.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Canon of Scripture (Table of Contents) is not in Scripture.

So just how does this refute SS?

1. Does SS require only explicit statements or does it support decisions based upon manifest principles in Scripture (so that the morality of such a thing as cannibalism can be judged)?

2. Does Scripture support souls correctly discerning both men and writings of God as being so, and thus the establishment of a body of writings, all without an infallible magisterium (and even in dissent from the valid one)?

3. And if so, then why cannot Scripture, and thus SS, support the establishment of a larger body/canon of writings, essentially based upon their unique enduring Heavenly qualities and attestation?

4. As regards sufficiency, does SS refer to only what it formally provides, such as clear teaching on how to be saved, but not what it materially provides in principal, such as the addition of additional writings to Scripture that were provided, and what it materially provides, such as the use of eyes, reason, the teaching office of the church, non-binding practices supported by Scripture, the guidance and illumination of the Spirit of Christ, history, and the preaching of Scriptural Truths (even as "the word" - Acts 8:4), etc. though excluding as essential additions to Scripture? (I myself allow for spiritual "sign gifts," albeit with skepticism, even that God can "speak" to souls today, but not as new essential public revelation equal to Scripture, but with all such claims being subject to testing by Scripture.).

5. Has God ever failed to provide what was sufficient as essential for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life obedience, and where do so see Scripture as not being sufficient to provide this, even if by means of being deduced from Scripture?

6. Where do we see Catholicism speaking as wholly inspired of God and even providing new revelation as apostles evidently sometimes did in oral preaching?

7. If not wholly inspired of God, what is the basis for the veracity of a particular event not recorded in Scripture, or prophesied therein or recorded early history where it should be, and requiring belief in such over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.

Without the Canon, you wouldn't have Scripture. No, the Apostles didn't have it. No, Christ didn't teach it.

You need to read scripture to see what it says. If you did you would understand that both the apostles and Jesus had and quoted it as unquestioned truth. Are you a Christian; I have no idea what kind of mindset you have with the Christ didn't teach it[scripture] comment.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
2 Timothy 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.​

I explained, however, why the question is, to use your word, asinine. You ask asinine questions, you're going to get asinine answers.

So you admit the answers to my question as asinine, I guess that includes yours. For your defense you declare the question asinine. You started this discussion with your post that scripture is incomplete. I asked a very simple question. Show me one "tradition" that completes scripture. You make a bold assertion that scripture is incomplete. I ask for evidence of it being insufficient for salvation. You can't and no Catholic has; so you now say the question is asinine/invalid. But, you did attempt an answer. Only when it is apparent that the answer, as you called it, is asinine do you now say the question is also asinine. What a winning defense of your belief; Not.

If one must be able to access Scripture to find what is needed for salvation, then the Canon is necessary for salvation, because one cannot access Scripture if one does not know what Scripture is. It's like thinking that Alexander Fleming would have been able to invent the field of antibiotics without first discovering that penicillium existed. If he hadn't discovered that penicillium mold, he wouldn't have been able to isolate the penicillin the mold creates in order to produce the antibiotic that started the field. In this case, the Canon is the penicillium mold. No mold means no penicillin. In the same way, no Canon means no Scripture. It means this not because the Scripture isn't there, but because without a way to isolate it, it cannot be useful.

Do you know what year it is? Are you living in the 3rd century before the Bible was declared canon? When you made an assertion that scripture is incomplete, you were talking about the present day. You did not say scripture 1600 years ago was incomplete. You use this as some kind of defense for traditions today and why we can't follow SS. Can you even understand that your one "tradition" of 1600 years ago has been converted to written form and is no longer a tradition passed down. In fact it is in the Bible, which we now call Scripture.
So, Sculley, you now follow Sola Scriptura.

Well, at least in a Sola Scriptura world the Scriptures themselves cannot be useful without being isolated. Sola Scriptura churches never had to survive without a Canon of Scripture.

God's word recorded in the Bible is a blessing to the world. We have had this for 1600 years. It is what we now call scripture. Stop living in the past and thinking that you deserve inerrancy forever because of one good deed. And, the canon wasn't even a tradition passed down from Jesus through the apostles. This is the question; you fail to answer, as others have.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Canon of Scripture (Table of Contents) is not in Scripture.

Christians today call the Bible our scripture. Look at the very beginning to see a Table of Contents. I guess all you Catholics like to live as if it was 1700 years ago.

 

[samir]

Our exchange has become so long that i have responded to it in sections. Which response to your overall fallacious attacks and defense of Catholicism took my arthritic fingers and other pains and activities days to write, by the grace of God

I'm not a Catholic nor am I defending Catholicism. I am a Protestant who seeks to follow the church founded by Jesus of which the ECFs of the first 3 centuries were members. Whenever I say the church teaches something, I'm referring to the church of the pre-Nicene ECFs, not any specific church today.

As far as which church Jesus founded, I've already ruled out all of the Protestant denominations and believe it is either the Catholic or Orthodox church so if you're trying to convince me otherwise it's probably not a good use of your time as I've already heard, studied, and rejected all the Protestant arguments. I discuss Catholic and Orthodox differences to learn but on these threads I'm hear to share what I learned. I say this to help you use your time wisely.

Part 1.

Not according to what Peter is describing in context, which is not that of salvation beginning with the act baptism making one good enough to go to Heaven, and ending with becoming good enough to go to Heaven in purgatory. Which will be explained further on.

Any RCC document will tell you the RCC teaches salvation by grace through faith. Baptism is the instrument God gave us to receive His grace through faith. No one believe baptism makes one good enough to go to Heaven (that doesn't make any sense).

You are reading as certainty what you want/need to into texts. John 3:5 does not speak of baptism, but of being born of the Spirit. And Christian baptism requires His death, and that had not happened yet in Jn. 3, while the baptism of John was not Christian baptism.

Titus 3:5 does not speak of baptism but of not being saved, " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5).

As shown, while regeneration and salvation is promised to those who will repent and be baptized, (Acts 2:28; Mk. 16:16) since this requires and testifies to such as having true faith, yet Peter also preached that the washing of sins was obtained by such faith as would be expressed in baptism, (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) See below

I don't find the novel interpretations of modern Protestants convincing. Below is how the ECFs understood these passages. Keep in mind they weren't relying on their own personal interpretation like Protestants do today. When the apostles appointed bishops they didn't just give them a bible and tell them to interpret it on their own. According to Acts, they taught them the faith orally which allowed them to understand what they meant in their writings. The reason everyone understood John 3:5 as teaching the necessity of baptism is because that's what the apostles taught orally. We know this for a fact because if that weren't the case there would have been a variety of interpretations like there are among Protestants today instead of the unanimous teaching of the ECFs.

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past… they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 61)”

Notice how he referred to baptism as a "washing with water" that remits sin which is a reference to Titus 3:5 before he said it was necessary by quoting John 3:5.

“It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Irenaeus, Fragments, 34)”

"For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,”He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. (Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch. 13)”

In short, baptism can be the occasion of coming to faith, but it is by personal repentant faith that the heart is purified, and which clearly can preceded baptism.

Although baptism is the instrument God uses to provide grace, the RCC does not teach that God is limited to the sacraments. The RCC agrees a person can be regenerated prior to receiving water baptism. Look up baptism of desire for a further explanation.

Wrong and absurd, but such dismissal is needed in order to support your defense of Catholicism. Tongues was confirmatory of the washing of regeneration, but Peter clearly preached the gospel to them saying,

Tongues were given to confirm that the New Covenant was open to Gentiles.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

Whosoever believeth meaning Jews and Gentiles. If you keep reading you'll see they were baptized in Acts 10:47.

Nothing was said about baptism to those lost (Acts 11:14) souls, but who manifestly did believe, as "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." (Acts 10:44) Thus the conclusion, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18)

And in recounting Acts 10:43-47, Peter plainly states,

Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

Thus it is simply incontrovertible that Acts 10:43-47 is about conversion of lost souls, of the washing of regeneration occurring before baptism. And which alone is consistent with the teaching elsewhere such as that

No one is saying God is unable to regenerate a person without water baptism. That people can and have been regenerated without receiving water baptism is consistent with RC teaching.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

No one ever manifestly gave a sermon to babies, as they cannot repent. Your response only confirms what i said.


There are not two gospels, and Peter plainly stated that repentant faith was a requirement for baptism, and it is the faith behind it by which the heart is purified.

Are you saying babies who die will go to Hell because they don't have repentant faith?

And in Acts 2:38 Peter does not say that the act of baptism effects regeneration as per Rome, but that if they will repent and be baptized, which signifies effectual believing, then they would received gift of the Holy Spirit.

Nice try but the verse clearly says, after they believed and asked what they should do, to repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins. That proves the grace received in baptism is what remits sins.

And which was/is the "promise of the Holy Ghost" that the apostles had received, (Acts 2:33,39) and which the company of the Gentiles received before baptism. (Acts 11:17) But which you tried to reduce to being about the gift of tongues, versus prebaptismal conversion by faith which is expressed in baptism.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is not the same as receiving tongues as a gift of the Holy Spirit.

There simply is no teaching on baptism that requires repentant faith for some but not for others, as you must make Scripture to teach. Believing is always required for conversion and baptism, which even some very young children are capable of. You can only wish that the Holy Spirit had manifestly shown infants being baptized, but he never does, despite His faithfulness in supplying other needed details, leaving Caths to read this into household baptisms.

Many Protestants believe in infant baptism. You have to go beyond what is written and assume there were no babies in those households.

And it is being culpable of sin is what condemns a soul, judgment being "according to their works", not merely possessing a sinful nature from Adam via conception by becoming human, which flesh dies at death.

Are you denying Romans 3:23? "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Of course they must support being saved by pure grace/not works for converts, but even then it is by a magical ritual which makes the subject good enough to be with God, which means he must become practically perfect thru purgatory in order to enter Heaven. More on this later on.

Baptism is not a magical ritual. It is the instrument God chose to give us his grace. All Christians believed in baptism for the first 1,000 years after Christ. Then Zwingli comes along and says everyone before him was wrong and that he alone understands what scripture says about baptism and Protestants chose to follow Zwingli instead of the ancient Christian faith.

The issue is believing on Him that who purifies the convert by faith, and justifieth the ungodly, so that "his faith is counted for righteousness," (Rm. 4:5) and thus spiritually is made to sit together with Christ in Heaven, and whose spirit will directly go to be with Him after death, (Lk. 23:42,43; Acts 7:59; 20:6; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23,34; 1Ths. 4:17) and with works justifying one as having true faith, being saved.

The RCC believes this and all the verses you mentioned.

In contrast to which is being declared righteousness because he actually has become good enough to enter Heaven, and thus must attain that state after death if he has not done so by death, ans thus is said to have truly merited eternal life.
More on this later on as dealing with Trent.

Scripture says justification is by faith and works, not faith alone. That means believers can be truly said to merit eternal life which is only possible by the grace of God and His promise to reward those works even though none of them are sufficient to earn eternal life apart from God's grace.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Canon of Scripture (Table of Contents) is not in Scripture.

It was also in the Bible at the time of the Reformation when the whole Sola Scriptura concept was made famous. So the argument is what teaching outside the Bible at that time, 500 years ago, do the Catholics require.

 

[samir]

Part 2.

A blatant fallacy.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdotes" for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable). The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of unique sacerdotal distinction for NT presbyteros.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function. [/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

I've looked into this before but since I'm not an expert on ancient languages I don't think I'm qualified to know whether the word "priest" or some other word should be used nor do I think it really matters since it's just a word. I'm happy using the word priest or pastor. It makes no difference to me.

By the third century bishops were considered priests.... By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

So we see they were called priests very early in the church so this wasn't some RC invention. Since there are so few writings from the first and second centuries, I think they were probably called priests earlier.

How is it that a common practice which the Holy Spirit nowhere exampled - except by pagans - despite providing approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and who only instructed believers to pray to God in Heaven ("call upon the Lord," "Our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother" or angel), can be justified because mortals copy pagans and justify it based upon the premise that communications btwn souls in the earthy realm must be able to fully transcend the earth/Heaven division, as God can?

There weren't any saints in Heaven until after the New Testament books were written. All that is required for the saints to hear prayer requests on earth is God giving them the ability to hear us.

That in all this the Holy Spirit would not example or exhort prayer to created beings, despite having plenty of angels to pray to in the OT, in addition to ascended believers in the NT. Which alone should be enough to manifest that doing so is not God's will, or at the least does not warrant requiring assent as a doctrine.

There are numerous examples in scripture of intercessory prayer to created beings on earth and I believe all Protestants pray/ask other Protestants on earth to pray for them so it shouldn't be any different with saints in heaven.

If such is not reason enough against this presumptuous Scripturally contrary and novel practice, consider that Christ is the only Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) who alone is said to engage in unceasing intercession, and in dealing with access to God, believers are exhorted to look to Christ as the uniquely sufficient intercessory high priest,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)

Scripture says it is good and acceptable for Christians to intercede between God and man:

1 Timothy 2:1-3 (NKJV) - "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior"

And that by his blood they have direct access into the holy of holies , the throne of God. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (Hebrews 10:19)

And that being able to hear all earthly prayer from Heaven is a uniquely Divine attribute, while from what i find then two-way communication btwn beings from Heaven and those on earth required both to somehow be in the same realm, and personal, and in the spiritual dimension were one on one ("the angel that talked with me" etc.).

Only one way communication is required (that saints hear the requests of those on earth). It is not a uniquely Divine attribute as scripture says those in heaven can hear prayers:

Revelation 5:8 (NKJV) - "Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

 

[Root of Jesse]

I guess I should have been more explicit and asked what it is.

I wonder what evidence you would accept, which is why I didn't quote any sources. But the Catechism has plenty. In the glossary it states what an indulgence is: "The remission of sin before God of the temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. A properly disposed member of the Christian faithful can obtain an indulgence under prescribed conditions through the help of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. (Pope Paul VI, Indulgentarium doctrina)

Note that sin must have already been forgiven. This means that you must have already gone to confession and completed your penance. You couldn't just buy your way to forgiveness.

From Catholic Answers:
The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: "Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)

In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980], 62-79).

As I've been saying, there is no question that certain people, even many, were selling indulgences, but it is also true that they had no authority to do so. Technically, they didn't actually sell indulgences, they implied while preaching that, if you gave money for building St. Peter's, you'd be granted an indulgence.

For what it's worth, many people aren't entirely knowledgeable of their faith, owing to the fact that they were brought up in that faith, and in the teaching, didn't pay much attention to it. I went on a tour in Rome once where, on the way to the Papal audience, we stopped at a souvenir shop. The tour guide told the people on the bus that "everything being sold in the store had been blessed by the pope." The fact is that it is not permitted to sell blessed objects, and if you do, they lose the blessing granted.

The truth is that there aren't any short-cuts, really. Lots of folks look for them, but the gate to heaven is narrow.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Paul knew what scripture was and declared it sufficient for salvation.

Where does he say it's 'sufficient'?

You think it took another 300 years for your church to put a stamp on something as theirs and you still consider it not sufficient for salvation.

No, it took 300 years of oral Tradition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of the NT I agree. However the TaNaKh (OT) was widely heard, circulated and memorized in the time of Christ and His apostles.

We do know the NT authors quoted TaNaKh extensively in their writings.

You do know that the Jewish Canon wasn't codified until at least the 2nd century? Some groups, namely the Sadducees and the Essenes, didn't take all of it as canonical.

Also, we don't believe that quotation of the OT in the NT constitutes canonicity, or that lack of quotation of the OT in the NT constitutes non-canonicity. There are many books in the OT canon that aren't quoted at all. Ecclesiastes, for one.