Pages

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Why Protestants deny Intercessory Prayer

Most of the time when a Protestant criticizes a Catholic practice, the criticism is not only based on a caricature, but more noteworthy is the fact the criticism contains an unparalleled level of irony. When it comes to the subject of Intercessory Prayer, both of these elements are present. 

When I've talked to Protestants on the matter, the fundamental problem they have with Intercessory Prayer is that they envision it as living people on earth talking to unconscious people, without realizing the Protestant themself has unconsciously made the assumption that the saints in heaven must unconscious. Luther was actually more consistent here than other Protestants, since there is good reason to believe he held to something called "soul sleep," in which the soul does not go to Heaven after death but instead "sleeps" in an unconscious state at the graveyard awaiting the Resurrection. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to say a soul that is "sleeping" and not in Heaven also cannot hear prayer, and it also makes sense at that point to deny the notion of Purgatory. But once the heretical notion of "soul sleep" is addressed, then the caricature is also addressed.

Now onto the irony behind the Protestant criticism of Intercessory Prayer. It turns out that with all the brouhaha over whether a saint in Heaven can intercede for a Christian on earth, the Protestant has failed to realize that Protestantism rejects the most important intercession of all, the Intercession of Jesus before the Father. This will be the focus of my post as I go onto explain.
 
The Protestant doctrine of Faith Alone holds that justification is a one time event involving the imputation of Christ's righteousness in which God sees Christ's righteousness instead of our unrighteousness. At that moment God declares that all the past and future sins of the believer are forgiven, with no requirements left preventing the believer from entering heaven. If only this were true. 

The fact is, Scripture never speaks of future sins being forgiven, only past sins, which is why someone has to repent each time they sin (e.g. David, Peter). Indeed, one of the most devastating passages in all of Scripture for Protestants (especially Calvinists) is Mark 11:25, 
Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
This verse shows that the Christian must regularly ask for forgiveness of whatever sins they've committed recently and that if they don't forgive others then the Father wont forgive them. This verse alone brings down Faith Alone theology and leaves Calvinists scrambling for the some of most embarrassing excuses I've ever seen. For example, Calvinist scholars have said these kinds of passages are not talking about actual forgiveness taking place, but rather about how a Christian can "feel good" knowing their sins are already taken care of. 

But to turn up the heat even more, consider the following passages talking about Jesus' intercessory role in the forgiveness and salvation process:
Hebrews 7: 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Romans 8: 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died - more than that, who was raised - who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us

1 John 2: 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
These passages are all speaking of Jesus' intercession in the present tense. The Greek verbs are in the present tense, meaning that the action is not a one time event of the past, but rather is taking place right now. But how can these passages speak of Jesus interceding for us in the present tense if our sins are already forgiven at the moment of conversion, as Faith Alone teaches? That's impossible, and thus by affirming Faith Alone the Protestant has unintentionally denied Jesus' role as Intercessor. 

In desperation a Protestant might respond by saying these texts are not speaking of forgiveness of sins or justification or something like that, but as I said this is sheer desperation. Not only is such a response completely ad hoc, even worse is the fact these passages are clearly given within the contexts of the High Priesthood, justification, forgiveness, etc. 

I cannot think of much more to say other than that this is one of the most devastating arguments a Catholic can use against a Calvinist, and it's abundantly clear which side is truly following Scripture.

251 comments:

1 – 200 of 251   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Nick,
The reason that all sins for the elect are forgiven is found in Col 2:13-14.

Keep in mind that there is no way to know what the dead are doing. You have no way of know if the dead person you are praying to can hear you or do anything about your requests.

Can those who are supposedly in purgatory hear your prayers and do something about them? How do you know?

The imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not about what God sees in us but it has to do with God declaring us righteous based on the merits of Christ Himself.

The forgiveness that we are to demonstrate in our lives is to show that we have been forgiven. See how this works in Matt 18:21-35. If God has forgiven us then we are to forgive others. To not forgive is to show you have not understood the forgiveness that God has forgiven you. Such a man will be chastised. See also Matt 5:48.

It is true that the elect have the Lord Christ interceding for them and forgiving them. Justification does not make us perfect in this world. That won't happen until we are fully glorified with Christ when He comes again. It is then that sin and our fallen bodies will be done away with.

Ralph

cwdlaw223 said...

Nick -

Don't forget Protestants ripping Macabees from the OT to get rid of any support for prayers to the dead.

Ralph -

Are you ever going to get me some info when your Protestant Bible first came into existence? Your authority to remove 7 books from the OT used by Christians for centuries?

Too Christian for Jews, Too Catholic for Protestants.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
I already answered that question.

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

You don't believe in the supernatural so this post will be hard for you. There is no mystery in your current world.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
You might want to sit out this round and learn something :)

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

You never answered my question about the Protestant BIBLE. That means all 66 books. When was the first 66 book Bible in use?

You can play all the games you want about which Jewish sect you chose for the OT, but you aren't going to find a 66 book Bible until well after the 14th Century.

So upon what authority do you have to remove 7 books from the OT? Tradition, which is where you obtained the books from, indicates 73 books. Where is the authority to remove scripture? Did the elect do this?

Anonymous -

What you are going to learn is that prayers to the dead were quite common in Jewish culture and that didn't change once the Jews became Christian. It was too "Catholic" for the Reformers so they, once again, tried to change history/interpretations in their progressive ways.

Nick said...

Ralph,

(1) Nothing about Col 1:13-14 suggests all future sins are forgiven, nor does any other verse. Try not to make such huge claims on texts that aren't so specific. Texts like 2 Peter 1:9 would be nonsense if future sins were also forgiven at the time of conversion, as would any text speaking of needing to repent (e.g. Lord's Prayer).

(2) You made the very dodge I spoke about in my post, which is that you cannot take the Lord's Prayer "forgive us our tresspasses" at face value, especially the language of Mark 10:25. All you can do is say it refers to recognizing God has already forgiven you, when the text says you won't be forgiven if you don't forgive.

(3) You didn't interact with my claims about Christ *presently* interceding for the Believer, which don't make sense in Reformed theology since the justification work is already done and is applied once.

cwdlaw223 said...

The Communion of Saints is lost upon anyone who denies intercessory prayer and has no concept of the supernatural or the Communion of Saints.

Joe said it best with this article:

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-prayer-to-saints-pointless.html

Nick said...

Just once I wish you or another Calvinist would recognize the complete pwnage and utter refutation of Reformed theology from one of my arguments.

Nick said...

p.s. the above post was for laughs.

It's hard being serious all the time when interactions aren't directly addressing arguments I and others make.

cwdlaw223 said...

Why did the Protestants decide to remove the 6 books from OT in 16th century after the Reformation in Europe?

Reasons:

1)The books that were removed supported such things as:

• Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
• Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7)
• Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
• Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)

2)Orthodox Christians follow the Older version/canon of the Jewish Scriptures(OT) which was in Greek*.

While Protestants follow the Masoretic Hebrew Text which was a new canon or version invented by the Jews in 7th Century Ad (a new version of Old Testament 7 centuries After Christ!).

{* Around 5 centuries before Christ, The Greeks colonised the Holy land and Egypt. They stayed for hundreds of years bringing hellenistic influence to West Asia.
Greek became the official language and the language of the rulers.
So Jewish scholars, philosophers etc switched to Greek from Hebrew, just like we deal more in English than in Malayalam these days.
So the Scripture that was written down in the last 400 years Before Christ were all in Greek.
The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) is the worlds oldest surviving version of the OT}
Jewish Council removes the 7 books after AD 90!

The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.

The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.

The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.

After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.

The books removed were Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).
The curse of Revelations

The Jews removed 7 books that meant ERASING 400 years of history. It also helped them to deny their Messiah- Jesus Christ.

The protestants removed these 7 books because they supported christian practises such as Intercession, Saints etc.

cwdlaw223 said...

Nick -

It always gets back to authority. Man or a physical Church on this earth. The progressives like man so they can always change what they don't like. Next Ralph will claim Rome added the 7 books and the original hidden/invisible Bible contained only 66 books.

No fidelity to history or truth, couple with pride, leads to theological relativism.

Post modern man hates the supernatural. He thinks that he's figured everything out and yet he doesn't even realize the supernatural that's required for his blessed sciences to even function.

Anonymous said...

Nick,
Here is what Col 2:13-14 say about what Christ accomplished:
"13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

To be "forgiven all transgressions and having the canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, " means every sin we commit has been forgiven and atoned for at the cross.

2 Peter 1:9 says nothing about all our sins being forgiven and cancelled out. Rather it is about a Christian who is blind and short-sighted who has forgotten that his sins have been forgiven.

I already am justified and forgiven in Christ. However, that does not mean I am perfect and don't sin. That is not possible in our fallen flesh. This is why we are to acknowledge our sin and ask God to forgive us when we do. We are to be genuinely sorry for our sin.

I certainly did interact with Christ interceding for us with "It is true that the elect have the Lord Christ interceding for them and forgiving them." We are not yet perfect and glorified in our bodies. We still sin and need the intercession of Christ. Justification does not make us perfect in this world and it is true it is "already done and is applied once.". It is in our sanctification that we need Christ' intercession.

Clint said...

Ralph,

You wrote: Keep in mind that there is no way to know what the dead are doing. You have no way of know if the dead person you are praying to can hear you or do anything about your requests.

Why use the word dead knowing that He is the God of the living? :)

I tend to say at the end of prayers to the Lord Jesus words such as "through the intercessions of the Holy Theotokos," "through the intercessions of the Saints in Heaven," or something similar. Why do I do this? Because "the continual prayer of a righteous person is powerful" (James 5:16) and the Communion of Saints is not the Separation of Saints.

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

When was the first Protestant Bible on this earth? Give me a date? Should be easy. Without much research I can definitively state a Catholic Bible was on this earth by 390 AD (and probably much sooner). You never answered this question and the information I presented above demonstrates why the certain Jewish sect version of the OT Protestants have chosen was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Clint,
It is true that God is the God of the living but that does not mean those who have died and gone on can hear your prayers now. This is the issue. Scripture does not tell us to pray to them in any way. The only One we are to pray to is God-Christ and in the name of Christ. This is apostolic teaching.

The James 5:16 passage is not about the dead but the living here.


Clint said...

Ralph,

It is true that God is the God of the living but that does not mean those who have died and gone on can hear your prayers now.

Being that they are in a different reality and are no longer bound by the laws of this universe, I would not put limits on what they can or cannot do based on my own experience of this universe. I do not know how exactly their intercession works since I don't know the mechanics of all things. It could very well be that God directly or indirectly informs the Saints of us wanting them to pray for us and then they say "For our sake, grant them their needs."

Scripture does not tell us to pray to them in any way. The only One we are to pray to is God-Christ and in the name of Christ. This is apostolic teaching.

There are a lot of things that the Holy Scriptures do not tell us – which texts are canonical, how exactly to baptize, and the timing of those seven hours that David praised God are three examples. If Jesus wanted His followers to adhere to strict Sola Scriptura, He would have said, "Give only the Holy Scriptures to the nations, baptize them in the Triune Name, and teach them only what is in the Bible." St. John had a lot to write to early Christians, however, he wrote to them saying that he would rather talk to them in person. If you travelled back in time and met him, heard him teach something(s) you never found in the Holy Scriptures, would you oppose him to his face or accept what you heard from an Apostle who received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost? If you oppose him, you would be guilty of opposing one of Christ's Apostles who learned from Him and even learned from the Spirit. If you accept his teaching, you would have the burden of knowing a true doctrine that cannot be proved with the Bible.

The James 5:16 passage is not about the dead but the living here.

As I said before, He is the God of the living. The members of the Body of Christ are alive and they are one Communion of Saints. By virtue of these things, the righteous who are in this world or elsewhere can still pray for another Christian.

John W said...


There are also passages like the following

2Cor 7:8 For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while—
9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.
10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.


I don't need to comment on this, but I can predict what a Calvinist will do with this passage.

1.) Make a distinction between spiritual death and physical death

2.) Interpret salvation as something temporal and not eternal salvation.

3.) If 1. and 2. don't convince, apply catch-all descriptive language paradigm to the passage.

Even with the above, it still shows repentance, indeed a Godly initiated repentance as opposed to I'm sorry I got reprimanded (can a totally depraved person even accomplish this?) leads to salvation and thus is a requirement on some level.
How does this square with the future sins already forgiven?

If this is indeed to be taken as descriptive, how can a Calvinist have peace with God when they really don't know if they will fall away and repent?

In fact, those who fall away for long periods at a time without repentance (irresistable grace?) are certainly not at peace with God. Then for some who eventually return, can they just say I was elect all along and didn't know it for a while?

Anonymous said...

Clint,
You are making unproven and unfounded assumptions about the after life and making a doctrine and practice out of it. You don't know the nature of a person in the after life nor know anything about their capabilities.

Scripture is clear that prayer to God-Christ alone and necessary.

Nick said...

cwdlaw: "It always gets back to authority. Man or a physical Church on this earth."

I like that summary. It really gets to the heart of it all. Who's in charge? Yourself or a Magisterium. There's no alternative. Protestants relentlessly attack the Catholic Magisterium but they turn a blind "I" to their their own Magisterium-of-Self.

Nick said...

Ralph,

When Col 2:13-14 says "forgiven all transgressions," it's speaking of past sins only. It's not saying your future sins are forgiven; that's just not in the text and it's contrary to other texts. This kind of exegesis is dangerous and characteristic of Protestantism, where they build an entire theology around a verse here and there.

The only reason why I mentioned 2 Peter 1:9 is because it specifically says "past sins" are forgiven, not future. If a Christian had past AND future sins forgiven, this text would be misleading.

You keep saying that you're not perfect and still sin. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that you still ask for forgiveness when you sin, despite the fact you believe your sins are already forgiven when you first converted. It's a standing contradiction.

You said: "It is in our sanctification that we need Christ' intercession."

In my opening post I predicted these kinds of excuses would come up. Christ's continuous intercession pertains to justification. You cannot admit that, but that's what the Bible says.

Anonymous said...

Nick,
All sins would include past, present and future sins. Peter is referring to all the sins of old life. That is the context. Col 2 is referring to all of life.

All my sins have been paid for by Christ. God knows what all the sins I will commit in my life and has taken all those sins out the way and paid the debt for them.

When a Christian sins in this life he is to ask forgiveness even though those sins have been atoned for. God wants us to be honest with ourselves and not deny our sins lest we make Him a liar. That's why we are to confess them.

You really do not understand justification and sanctification. Our justification is a one time event where God declares us righteous based on Christ. Christ continues to intercede for us in regards to prayer, our weakness and sin. These are all sanctification issues.

Anonymous said...

Nick,
Where has your authority i.e. Magisterium interpreted the Scripture for you? Where is the infallible-official interpretation of the Scripture?

We both know it does not exist. That leaves you and all other RC's to determine on your own what you think Scripture means.

Nick said...

Ralph,

It cannot be that sins are forgiven before you actually commit the sin. To read "all sins forgiven" in Col 2 as referring to future sins is to read more than is warranted into the text. There are numerous texts that show that only past sins are forgiven upon each time you repent.

The idea that we confess our sins only because God wants us to be honest with ourselves is both unscriptural and nonsensical. A person who knows they are already forgiven IS being honest with themself to recognize that. The idea that they have to follow this up by asking for forgiveness would be a sign of mental disorder.

And your approach makes nonsense of the Bible texts which say we NEED to forgive others SO THAT God will forgive us. And that if we don't forgive others then God wont forgive us. That's why I love this text, because it beautifully shows how badly the Scriptures get tortured when wrong doctrines are espoused.

As for the continual Intercession of Christ, you're still not following Scripture on this but rather your own whims. The texts speak of Christ's Intercession in contexts about issues pertaining to justification. Christ's High Priesthood is fundamentally about a sin-forgiving role.



cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

You are so much smarter than 1,400 years of history and probably would have been a gnostic had you been born in biblical times.

The world is flat. Just look at the horizon!

If you keep saying your right long enough maybe the world will change! Good luck with that strategy.

Daniel said...

Nick,
Where has your authority i.e. Magisterium interpreted the Scripture for you? Where is the infallible-official interpretation of the Scripture?

We both know it does not exist. That leaves you and all other RC's to determine on your own what you think Scripture means...


You brought this up on another thread and I explained by analogy, that America legal dogma has a magisterium (final binding authority) a scripture (statutory law) and tradition (common law and legal precedent).

I then asked for you to show me where one could find the Supreme Court's official interpretation of the law.

There isn't an official document that lists all the laws with commentary on every case that touches on every law.

To the contrary, what exists is definitive statements that at some points touch on some of the laws.

When the authority of the court is violated, one is excommunicated from the bar.

Now, moving on to old business. Will you please tell us what SPECIFIC CHURCH (not individual) used EXACTLY the 66 book Protestant canon. That should be very easy if your position was true.

And as far as asking the dead saints to intercede for us to the Godhead, that's a traditionas old as Moses.

And it's still doneby Jews today.

Anonymous said...

Nick,
Since you seem to be an expert on Calvinism where did he write that we don't need to confess our sins though we are justified and saved? Where did he write that confession of sin for a believer-Calvinist is no longer necessary?

BTW- where does your church officially teach that all the sins you will commit are not forgiven? What document says this?

Ralph

Clint said...

Ralph,

You are making unproven and unfounded assumptions about the after life and making a doctrine and practice out of it.

Yes, my stated belief that the Saints are no longer in our universe but in another reality in the presence of God is an "unproven and unfounded assumption." Do you have biblical proof for a much better assumption?

You don't know the nature of a person in the after life nor know anything about their capabilities.

I'm sure Stalin is incapable of relieving his agonies in Hell.

Scripture is clear that prayer to God-Christ alone and necessary.

This is supposed to be a disapproval of a Catholic desiring the faithfully and righteously departed who are in Heaven to pray for him or her?

cwdlaw223 said...

Daniel -

Not only will he not be able to tell us when a Church started using a 66 canon, he won't tell us when the 66 book canon came into existence!

I guess he can always use a Joseph Smith strategy and claim new revelation that 7 OT books should be removed from scripture even though for 1,400 years the 73 book canon was scripture.

It's all about authority and always has been about authority. Man wants to be his own Pope, Priest and Church. Man always thinks he's smarter than the dolts only one or two generations ago.

Clint said...

Ralph,

You wrote to Nick: Where has your authority i.e. Magisterium interpreted the Scripture for you? Where is the infallible-official interpretation of the Scripture?

Have you read any of the documents of ecumenical councils such as Trent and Vatican? They and others contain infallible-official interpretations of Scripture.

Clint said...

cwdlaw,

It's all about authority and always has been about authority. Man wants to be his own Pope, Priest and Church. Man always thinks he's smarter than the dolts only one or two generations ago.

That reminds me of something St. Paul wrote! "Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits." (Romans 12:16 DV)

Feel free to quote that. :p

Daniel said...

Perhaps we should start at the beginning?

Do you Anonymous accept Nicea both the canons and the creed as legitimate?

Anonymous said...

Clint,
If Scripture does not teach something then we should not embrace it or believe it's true no matter who tells you.

What scriptures specifically has Trent and the Vatican councils infallibly interpreted?

Daniel said...

Anonymous said...

Clint,
If Scripture does not teach something then we should not embrace it or believe it's true no matter who tells you.


Some people believe that if the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit doing X or believing Y, then it's allowed to do that.

Some people believe that if the Bible doesn't explicitly allow X or belief Y, then it's strictly forbidden to do it.

Which Scripture did you use to come to your conclusion on this manner?

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
What is the nicea canon?

Daniel said...

Anon,

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Daniel said...

Anon,

I forgot to mention: creeds are binding, dogmatic decrees are binding, and canons are binding but can be altered or done away with.

And in the RC tradition, only dogmatic degrees that are accepted by Rome are truly binding.

cwdlaw223 said...

"Anonymous said...
Clint,
If Scripture does not teach something then we should not embrace it or believe it's true no matter who tells you."

This means the Trinity, Apostles Creed, Nicean Creed, sola scriptura and justification by faith alone SHOULD ALL BE REJECTED BECAUSE NOWHERE DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH WITH THESE WORDS. ESPECIALLY JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IN THAT ORDER. NOWHERE.

Of course, anonymous is now going to backtrack on the above and define teaching as what's said in scripture or inferred from scripture. Once he goes down the "inferred from scripture" rabbit hole he brings man back into the equation without any Church created by Christ that has lasted on this earth. Theological anarchy which is the heart and sould of Protestantism. Man gets to interpret scripture on his own no matter how crazy the interpretation.

So why does Ralph have a better interpretation? He's smatter than everyone else.


Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Where does your church say "only dogmatic degrees that are accepted by Rome are truly binding"? What document says this?

Daniel said...

And sometimes Calvinists can botch really easy scriptures too.


Daniel 10:21

21. But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.



John Calvin's Commentary on that Verse: God seemed, at least for a time, to leave his people without help, and afterwards two angels were sent to contend for them; first, a single one was sent to Daniel, and then Michael, whom some think to be Christ. I do not object to this view, for he calls him a prince of the Church, and this title seems by no means to belong to any angels, but to be peculiar to Christ.


That's awefully Jehovah Witness like.

And I'm sure that you Anonymous would disagree with Calvin here.

Just like when Calvin called Baruch a prophet, and referenced the Book of Baruch 2:18-19, 3:2

http://books.google.com/books?id=QHYrAAAAYAAJ&dq=institutes%20of%20the%20christian%20religion%20%22Baruch%22&pg=PA461#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anonymous said...

Since no one is infallible, Scripture can be misinterpreted.

Daniel said...

If Scripture can be misinterpreted (no denying that fact from me!) and if no one is infallible, then how is the Church of the Living God the "pillar and bulwark" of Truth?

You are saying you have a solid foundation (scripture), on which you set your wobbly interpretations that may or not be true, and from those interpretations of the Scripture alone, you find your rocksolid dogmas that you know to be true.

If the bottom is solid, the middle is wobbly, and the top is solid, then the whole thing isn't sturdy.

Your top is limited in its ability to be sturdy by your middle.

No, the Church is the pillar of truth. And worship (the liturgy) is to be done in Spirit and in Truth.

The Church is to be lead into all Truth. John 16:13

That's not at the end of time, or end of the age, or whatever, because the sentence ends with "He (the Spirit) will show you things to come," as in when you receive the Spirit in this unique way, you will be shown what will happen in the future. So there must be a future.

cwdlaw223 said...

Scripture doesn't say no one is infallible. You have a warped view of history and scripture.

Who says scripture is infallible? Not scripture. In fact, scripture was transmitted through men just like Christ's Church can make infallible teaching on faith and morals. Both are guided by God!!!!

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
What does ""pillar and bulwark" mean and what church was Paul referring to?

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Do the Scriptures err in what they teach?

Daniel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Restless Pilgrim said...

In an effort to keep this on-topic, I'd really like to hear Ralph/Anon/Meyu's answer to two questions Nick asked:

1. How do you account for the IF-THEN-ELSE logic of Mark 11:25? According to that passage, what happens if you don't forgive the sins of others?

2. From the context of the passage, how do you conclude that Hebrews 7:23 speaks about sanctification rather than justification?

Daniel said...

That the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth? And what else do these words mean, than that the Truth of God is preserved in the Church, and served by the ministry of preaching; as Paul says, that Christ "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ"? (Eph. 4:11, 14, 15) Therefore the reason why the Truth, instead of being extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is because he has the Church as a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. But if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the Prophets and Apostles, it follows that the whole depends upon this:

Tthat the Divine Wisdom (the Logos or the Word) of the Lord is faithfully preserved and maintained in purity.

By these words Paul tells us that to prevent the Truth from perishing in this wicked world, the Church is Truth's faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her, and to show himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation.

Therefore it is a necessity to beware of sinful dissent. "For seeing by it [dissent] we aim as far as in us lies at the destruction of God's Truth," we deserve to be crushed by the full thunder of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with us, his Body.

Tell me plainly, can you at least agree with everything I said above with all your heart???

Restless Pilgrim said...

* how do you conclude that Hebrews 7:23-25 speaks about sanctification rather than justification?

Anonymous said...

Hi Restless,
Those who don't forgive will be chastened since it is a sin not to. See Hebrews 12:4-7

Don't know what Hebrews 7:23 has to do with this issue. What do you think it does?

Anonymous said...

Hebrews 7:23-27 is about sanctification sins it speaks of Christ's role as high priest and the intercession He makes on behalf of our sins.

Restless Pilgrim said...

>Those who don't forgive will be chastened since it is a sin not to

The context of my question was Mark 11:25 so I'd appreciate it if you dealt with that passage before looking at others. I asked two questions:

(i) How do you account for the IF-THEN-ELSE logic of Mark 11:25?
(ii) According to that passage, what happens if you don't forgive the sins of others?


> Hebrews 7:23-27 is about sanctification sins it speaks of Christ's role as high priest and the intercession He makes on behalf of our sins.

I understand that you're asserting this, but I'm just asking how you reach this conclusion. The question I asked was:

(i) how do you conclude that Hebrews 7:23-25 speaks about sanctification rather than justification?

Anonymous said...

The context of Mark 11:25-26 is that the believer is to have a forgiving attitude because God has forgiven him.
If he refuses to forgive then God will not forgive him. It would show that the Christian has a hardened heart and needs to repent of that. See also Matt 18:21-35 and eph 4:32

Hebrews 7:23-27 is about sanctification since Christ intercession is necessary for our sanctification. His intercession also involves His being the mediator of a better covenant. (Heb 8:6) This better covenant is explained in 8:7-13.

Clint said...

Ralph,

If Scripture does not teach something then we should not embrace it or believe it's true no matter who tells you.

John 21:25 reads, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (DV)

Hypothetically speaking, if I managed to travel back in time to the days of the Apostles and St. John told me one or more of the unwritten things that Jesus did, should I refuse to embrace and believe what he tells me if it is not actually written anywhere in the Holy Scriptures? By your logic I should even have the same reaction toward Jesus.

2 John 12 reads, "Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full."

Should the "lady Elect and her children" have refused to embrace and believe whatever St. John told them if they were not able find it in the Bible? He and probably all of the Apostles may have taught some "unbiblical" Marian dogmas. ;)

Acts 2:42 reads, "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Those 3000ish persons who listened to Peter and were baptized should not have believed any of Apostles' doctrine because there was no telling if any of it was not in the Bible. This is the consequence of your Sola Scriptura view.

What scriptures specifically has Trent and the Vatican councils infallibly interpreted?

One example from the Council of Trent in the 14th Session:

If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained," are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema.

One example from the Vatican Council in the 4th Session:

And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep."

These two ecumenical councils infallibly interpreted John 20:22–23 and John 21:15–17.

As it says in entry Infallibility of The Catholic Encyclopedia:

Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

Therefore no true Catholic can have their own contrary interpretation or exegesis of John 20:22–23 and John 21:15–17. The Councils infallibly interpreted them and taught us the true meanings. There are more verses or passages of Scripture that have been infallibly interpreted. You just have to read the documents. :)

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Are you ready to exegete John 20:22-23 and 21:15-17 to see if they really do mean what your church infallibly means they say? After all the Scripture commands us to test all things.

Restless Pilgrim said...

>If he refuses to forgive then God will not forgive him

Thanks for answering. How do you reconcile what you've just said with Sola Fide?


> Hebrews 7:23-27 is about sanctification since Christ intercession is necessary for our sanctification. His intercession also involves His being the mediator of a better covenant. (Heb 8:6)

It appears that you're saying that Hebrews 7 is about Sanctification because we need Jesus for our Sanctification. Why then can't it be about Justification since we also need Jesus for our Justification?

As Nick pointed out above, the context seems to point to Justification rather than Sanctification but you haven't really explained why you think it refers to the latter rather than the former.

Anonymous said...

This would not affect sola fide. Keep in mind that God is at work in believers to conform them to the image of Christ and to complete their salvation. (Phil 1:6)
If that person refuses to forgive then God will not leave them in that position but will continue to convict and chastise them until they do. Heb 12. What Jesus is doing in Mark is to show how important it is to forgive and the consequences of not doing so in this life.

In regards to Heb 7, do you think we need the intercession of Christ in our lives right now?

Secondly, I'm not aware of any passage on justification where it mentions the intercession of Christ specifically. Can you?

Clint said...

Ralph,

Are you ready to exegete John 20:22-23 and 21:15-17 to see if they really do mean what your church infallibly means they say? After all the Scripture commands us to test all things.

And it is 1 Thessalonians 5:21 that says to prove all things.

[20] Despise not prophecies. [21] But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (DV)

Looking at those two verses together, I think the Apostle instructs Christians to not be totally heedless of any prophecy but to prove it. St. Jerome's translation says omnia autem probate and it means "but prove all," so I definitely think the Apostle was speaking of prophecies and I will not apply it to the inerrant definitions of an ecumenical council or pope. If he really did mean, literally, prove everything, then we would have to prove the Holy Trinity, creation ex nihilo, Original Sin, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Parousia, and anything else mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. On the contrary, Christians are obligated to assent to and believe these truths no matter what because Jesus Christ, through the Holy Catholic Church, taught them.

As an orthodox Catholic I will continue to believe what Trent and Vatican taught John 20:22-23 and 21:15-17 mean. Those shepherds of the Church aren't there for us to not submit to (unless they are heretics).

Anonymous said...

Clint,
The Bereans in Acts 17:11 tested Paul's teaching with Scripture. This is a command of Scripture that we are test all things including what our leaders teach. How else can you know if they are heretics or not if you don't test their teachings?

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel said...

faith + forgiveness = (faith alone)

faith - forgiveness = X

Solve for X and show your work.

faith - forgiveness + forgiveness = X +forgiveness

faith = X + forgiveness

X + forgiveness + forgiveness = (faith alone)

X + 2forgiveness = (faith alone)

X = (faith alone) - 2forgiveness

faith - forgiveness = (faith alone) - 2forgiveness


faith - forgiveness + 2forgiveness = (faith alone) - 2forgiveness + 2forgiveness

faith +forgiveness = (faith alone)

faith-faith+forgiveness =(faith alone)-faith

forgiveness = (faith alone) - faith

No I think Anonymous has made a mistake.





cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

Please define the word "infallible"?

Please indicate where in scripture it says that Christ's physical Church on this earth (assume it's not Rome) can err? You keep making these claims that anything outside of scripture is ALWAYS fallible and yet scripture makes no reference to anything outside of it being fallible. Where do you get this idea? It just has to be???

Anonymous said...

Coleslaw,
Infallible means incapable of error. Absolutely trustworthy.

All churches can err since men are fallible. Even when the Lord Christ was here with His apostles that did not make them incapable of error. Peter in Galatians was rebuked by Paul for erring.

Restless Pilgrim said...

>This would not affect sola fide. Keep in mind that God is at work in believers to conform them to the image of Christ and to complete their salvation. (Phil 1:6)
If that person refuses to forgive then God will not leave them in that position but will continue to convict and chastise them until they do. Heb 12.


So are you saying that a Christian will always eventually forgive others?


>What Jesus is doing in Mark is to show how important it is to forgive and the consequences of not doing so in this life.

But why? If you answer "yes" to my above question, it'll never happen! Why warn someone about a dire consequence which can never actually happen?


> In regards to Heb 7, do you think we need the intercession of Christ in our lives right now?

I do. It's just that I don't think that's the only thing we need. I'm not really any the wiser as to why you think this only refers to sanctification.


>Secondly, I'm not aware of any passage on justification where it mentions the intercession of Christ specifically. Can you?

Well, if my assertion about Hebrews is correct, this chapter does.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Help me out. What is faith alone?

Anonymous said...

If the Christian does not forgive in this life then he will give account in the judgment. See 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Jesus is deeply concerned how we live here and now. We are to live for the glory of God, pursue Christ-likeness,and not to give the devil a foothold via a hardened heart which UN-forgiveness is. We are to make it our ambition to please Christ. SEE 2Corinthians 5:9.

Restless Pilgrim said...

Anon, you didn't answer any of my questions, you just talked around them. I'd appreciate some direct answers please. Let's just focus on the first section to keep things simple:

(a) So are you saying that a Christian will always eventually forgive others? Yes or no?

(i) If yes, why did Jesus waste His time describing a situation which could never happen?

(ii) If no, can someone enter Heaven if the Father does not forgive Him? Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

Don't start this nonsense again. These are complex issues and I have answered them with what scripture teaches on these matters.
A) answered above
(I) answered above
All who enter heaven is because they are elect and have been born again in Christ and have the life of Christ in them and unified to Him.

Daniel said...

faith alone would be a spiritual virtue given by grace from God that precludes the presence of any others by definition. its the act of believing in something.

Anonymous said...

If faith alone means believing in something then its really not faith alone. Right?

Restless Pilgrim said...

> Don't start this nonsense again.

What nonsense? I'm just asking a few very simple questions. I asked one yes/no question and got no "yes" or "no"...

And yes, it is "again". I left the previous thread when you refused to answer my questions, making dialog impossible.


> These are complex issues and I have answered them with what scripture teaches on these matters.

You haven't answered though, have you? You've talked around these questions. You haven't given a direct answer to the questions asked.

> A) answered above
(I) answered above


Since you refer to (i), am I to conclude from this that you would answer "Yes" to (a)? Will every Christian always forgive?

If so, can you please explain to me why Jesus would waste His time giving warnings about things which can never come about? How does that make sense?

If my Dad said "Don't you dare take the car out or there'll be hell to pay!", what is the value in that statement if it is physically impossible for me to take the car out?

Anonymous said...

Your questions cannot be answered truly by yes or no. I also answered 2 of those questions.
You are the one that is refusing to check my answer from Scripture. You are being disingenuous.

Restless Pilgrim said...

You're taking about other passages and I just want to keep this focussed. I'm trying to understand what Jesus is saying and it sounds an awful lot like he didn't believe in sola fide.

it concerns me that you say these questions can't be answered with a yes/no. They're pretty basic questions of soteriology.

I know what a Calvinist believes, but I'm trying to see how you can make sense of Calvinism from this passage. It seems to either deny Calvinism or drain Jesus' words of all meaning...

Clint said...

Ralph,

The Bereans in Acts 17:11 tested Paul's teaching with Scripture. This is a command of Scripture that we are test all things including what our leaders teach.

If you are going to assert that 1 Thessalonians 5:21 means that a Christian must test literally all things, please prove to me that this is the context of verses 20 and 21. In my previous comment I demonstrated why it only pertains to prophecy.

As for the Bereans testing what St. Paul taught them, they weren't doing Sola Scriptura. These were Jews who, until the Apostle came to them, did not know that the man Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into Heaven on the 40th day. During their Judaism they probably even practiced extra-biblical customs on the Sabbath and other holy days.

The text says that they received St. Paul's teaching with all eagerness before they searched the Scriptures daily to see if all that they heard was so. However, would they have known before that the things they looked at in the Old Testament were prophecies and foreshadowings of Christ unless someone, i.e., St. Paul, told them so? This reminds me of the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading aloud from the Prophet Isaiah and then St. Philip asked him if he thought he knew whom Isaiah wrote about. The eunuch replied, "How can I unless someone tells me?"

Remember when St. Peter preached to the Jews (Acts 2:14–36)? About 3000 of them were instantly converted and they devoted themselves to the doctrine of the Apostles and lived the Christian life (Acts 2:37–47). The author of Acts didn't even mention them "testing" St. Peter's message with Scripture.

How else can you know if they are heretics or not if you don't test their teachings?

If I know instantly or if I eventually find out that something taught is a heresy, it would be because I look to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. However, that doesn't mean that I come up with an innovative interpretation or exegesis of Scripture and cry heresy.

Anonymous said...

Clint,
I Thess 5:21 is not just about prophecy. It would cover all things including teachings since in other places in Scripture we are warned about false teachers coming into the church and deceiving many. In fact there are rebukes by Christ to false teachings in Rev. Each believer in Christ is responsible for knowing the truth and being on guard against false teachings. I don't see this with RC"s. They can't because they assume there church would not mislead them even when they are faced squarely with the evidence.

Clint said...

Ralph,

I Thess 5:21 is not just about prophecy.

I assert that in verses 20 and 21 St. Paul only had prophecy in mind. Allow me to demonstrate this by doing a word for word translation of both verses as they appear in the Latin Vulgate text.

[Verse 20]
Vulgate: prophetias nolite spernere
English: prophecies don't spurn

[Verse 21]
Vulgate: omnia autem probate quod bonum est tenete
English: all but test what good is uphold

My translation: "Don't spurn prophecies, but test all; uphold what is good."

The apparent meaning is that we must not reject all prophecies, rather, we should test what is revealed to us and then hold onto whatever doesn't seem spurious. I believe this is exactly what St. Paul taught in 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21, for it is the apparent meaning and no other words imply he had teachings of the Church in mind. However, I don't see anything wrong with applying the principle to things other than prophecies. You might find this blameless.

In fact there are rebukes by Christ to false teachings in Rev.

Praise be to Him, the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls!

Each believer in Christ is responsible for knowing the truth and being on guard against false teachings.

I couldn't agree more.

I don't see this with RC"s.

I don't see it with anyone who is not a Catholic. By the way, I'm not a Roman (Byzantine is more like it), but I submit to the Roman Pontiff so as long as he is a Catholic.

They can't because they assume there church would not mislead them even when they are faced squarely with the evidence.

The Holy Catholic Church, which St. Paul called the pillar and ground of the truth, would not mislead its members.

For there will rise up false Christs and false prophets, and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect. (Mark 13:22 DV)

They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. (1 John 2:19 DV)

If it appears the Catholic Church is intentionally misleading people, it would be because it's not actually the Catholic Church but something else. Keeping those two verses above in mind, a Catholic who is one of God's Elect would not be (or would not remain) misled by Antichrists and the like who are not actually of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Restless Pilgrim said...

Can I expect any further explanation? An interaction with my "car" comparison?

Anonymous said...

Restless,
I already answered what happens to Christians who don't forgive. Answer is at 5:43 pm

The mere fact that Christ commands and warns us even though God knows what we will do is enough for us to do what He commands. Not to do so would be disobedient.

Anonymous said...

Clint,
What would be some signs that your church is misleading you? How would you know? What would be your criteria?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

I agree with your definition. Now please tell me why you believe that scripture doesn't err since it was written by fallible men. Under your construct above scripture must err because it was physically written by fallible men.

Anonymous said...

God is the source, the One who breathed out the scripture. Thus, it is without error in its original autographs. It does not err in what it speaks of.

Daniel said...

Is Jesus God? Did not Jesus breathe on the Apostles (John 20:22-23)? Did this not impart the Holy Spirit into them? Was that same Spirit not promised to lead them to all truth (John 16:13)?

You haven't so far said anything about Scripture that can't be said of the Apostles. In trying to prove that Scripture is infallible, you so far have proven the Apostles equally infallible.

Would you like to present some new evidence to draw a distinction between the authority of the Scriptures because they are theopneustos [God-breathed] and the authority of the Apostles because emphysaō [He breathed on them]?

Anonymous said...

If the apostles were incapable of error then how could Peter be rebuked in Galatians for erring by Paul?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Do you believe error means any error in life or just errors on teaching faith and morals?

cwdlaw223 said...

Scripture doesn't teach per se. It must be interpreted. The Bible doesn't communicate to you verbally.

Anonymous said...

Who is our models for perfection? Christ who did not err in His life and teachings. Scripture does not err either because it has its source in God.

Men error not only in some of their doctrines but also in life.

Daniel said...

Two points:

1) That's a different Peter according to Clement of Alexandria.

2) That's not what infallibility is. Infallibility is not interchangeable with inerrancy.

Anonymous said...

Clement is wrong. The context is about Peter the apostle. See Gal 2:7-10.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
I thought you earlier claimed the Bible does not need to be interpreted?

Does the Bible teach i.e. present reasons to us via stories, examples and statements about God, what to believe and how to live?

When someone reads the Bible out loud is the Bible communicating verbally?

Clint said...

Ralph (Anonymous, or whoever you are),

What would be some signs that your church is misleading you? How would you know? What would be your criteria?

It appears you have no appreciation for my comments, which, by the way, you can see I put effort into. If you have really read any of them, you would have worded your most recent questions better and you would have already answered them.

First, my Church cannot mislead me. It is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). As I wrote before, "If it appears the Catholic Church is intentionally misleading people, it would be because it's not actually the Catholic Church but something else."

Second, the Holy Catholic Church has the great deposit, i.e., "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) It has, for centuries, been reaffirmed and taught by its Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and cherished by its Laity, Clergy, and Religious. This is the Church of the authentic Scriptures, Tradition, and Magisterium. If an individual intentionally believes and teaches something that contradicts the faith (and they know it), that person reveals himself to be a heretic. If an institution intentionally believes and teaches doctrines that contradict the faith (and they know it), it is not the Holy Catholic Church. I would know because my criteria is Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Not all churches are the pillar and support of the church. The RCC is not because it teaches doctrines contrary to Scripture. It is heretical in those teachings that contradict Scripture. Some of these teachings are: Mary's immaculate conception, her sinlessness, indulgences and a celibate leadership.

Jesus never promised the church could not err. Scripture is replete with warnings of false teachers coming into the church to deceive.

So long as you believe your church cannot err you will believe its errors.

cwdlaw223 said...

No I didn't. If I did, it was to show you how ridiculousness of your sola Scriptura position.

It all depends how you define the word teach. You keep using words imprecisely and as though the Bible is physically teaching people as though it were physically alive.

Please tell me why scripture is infallible. My answer, because it comes directly from God himself and therefore must be infallible. You????

Anonymous said...

Do we learn things from the Bible? Does it teach us things?

This is what I said about the Scripture being infallible:
"God is the source, the One who breathed out the scripture. Thus, it is without error in its original autographs. It does not err in what it speaks of."

We believe the same things about it.

cwdlaw223 said...

Explain to me why scripture is infallible becomes it comes from God but teachings from Christ's Church are fallible even though they come from God? What's the difference? Man is merely the medium but it's still God teaching.

That's what you don't get. You correctly presume scripture is infallible (notwithstanding your incomplete Bible), but you then deny Christ's Church could err even though SCRIPTURE SAYS/IMPLIES THE OPPOSITE AND CHURCH TEACHING COMES FROM GOD.

Anonymous said...

The reason we know your teachings are not from God is because many of them contradict Scripture. That's how we know your church is fallible.

Daniel said...

Calvin taught the Church can't err.

He mischaracterizes the Catholic position, and then lays out his own which is contrary to yours.

"And that my readers may the better understand the hinge on which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly explain what our opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the Church can err, their end and meaning are to this effect: Since the Church is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word [Catholics DO NOT believe this]; in whatever direction she moves, she cannot think or speak anything but the truth, and hence, if she determines anything without or beside the word of God, it must be regarded in no other light than if it were a divine oracle. If we grant the first point--viz. that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation--our meaning is, that she cannot err,
because she has altogether discarded her own wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word of God."

cwdlaw223 said...

They don't contradict scripture at all. They contradict your fallible interpretation of scripture. It's impossible for you to understand Orthodox Christianity until you acknowledge that Christ left us a physical Church on this earth to guide us instead of just 27 books from the NT. Those books aren't self authenticating and aren't self interpreting.

You truly believe there was no deposit of faith in a visible, physical Church on this earth. Until you accept the fact that Christ left us with more than scripture to help us you'll forever be lost in theological relativism and anarchy.

If Christ failed with his physical Church, which is what you assert, then he is a liar and not the Messiah by the own words in scripture. Your problem is epistemological in nature.

History is a bitch. I'm not smarter than those who were taught direct under the Apostles or one person away. You think you are smarter than these Mass worshiping people. That's intellectual pride.

cwdlaw223 said...

Scripture teaches Christ's Church cannot err and yet Anonymous claims it does. Where does one get the right to pick and chose scripture we like and don't like??? Only progressives and liberals can come up with such ridiculousness.

Daniel said...



The reason we know your teachings are not from God is because many of them contradict Scripture.


Let's save us both some time:

1. Call no man father...

2. One mediator/asking the dead to pray for us....

3. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

4. Holy Water...

5. There's only one sacrifice...



Clint said...

Anonymous,

Not all churches are the pillar and support of the church.

Actually, it's pillar and ground of the truth as St. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15. He wrote that the Church of the living God is that pillar and ground. But I'm sure that's what you meant to type.

There is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ and it is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. You don't believe this though because church history (and apparently some parts of Scripture also) doesn't mean anything to you. I used to be the same way.

The RCC is not because it teaches doctrines contrary to Scripture.

I don't know if you are aware of the fact, but the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are not synonymous. The Roman Catholic Church is one of many particular churches that altogether make up the Catholic Church. There are many Eastern Catholic churches, such as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff. Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics all believe the same doctrine.

The Holy Catholic Church does not teach doctrines contrary to the Scriptures. That's what you say because your Protestant and personal innovative interpretation of Scripture intentionally do not conform to the Church that gave you the New Testament and many doctrines that even the Deformers held onto.

It is heretical in those teachings that contradict Scripture. Some of these teachings are: Mary's immaculate conception, her sinlessness, indulgences and a celibate leadership.

Heretical according to who? You, a man who is outside of the Church of the living God through whom Jesus Christ teaches the orthodox faith?

If you cannot accept the Immaculate Conception and other Marian dogmas it's because you intentionally reject the truth. Even if you met her and she told you she is the Immaculate Conception, the Ever-Virgin, the Theotokos, and that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven, you would disagree. And by the way, clerical celibacy is not a doctrine -- it's a canonical discipline. It has always seemed to me that Protestants can't stand celibacy and virginal purity.

Jesus never promised the church could not err. Scripture is replete with warnings of false teachers coming into the church to deceive.

False teachers coming into the Church to deceive, which does not mean the Church errs. After all, St. John wrote "they were not of us."

So long as you believe your church cannot err you will believe its errors.

The Holy Catholic Church, which I entered through Baptism and remain a member by holding fast to the its faith and staying in God's friendship, does not teach errors. There is, however, an institution masquerading as the Church and it teaches heresy.

So as long as you believe your innovative interpretation of Scripture and your false ecclesiology, you will believe in errors.

Outside of the Church there is absolutely no salvation or remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam) and without the Catholic faith one cannot please God (Council of Trent, Session V). I seriously recommend that you reject the Protestant error, believe in the faith that was handed down to the Saints (Jude 3), and receive the Holy Mystery of Baptism if you haven't received it already. Your soul is in danger of eternal damnation so as long as you persist in what you are involved in.

I am not going to debate with you anymore because I see it's not really going anywhere. But I do wish you the best and I hope the Lord guides you to the truth. :)

Daniel said...

Anonymous, you asked me a question a long time ago that I didn't respond to...at least yet.

You asked what was the first Catholic document that spelled out infallibility.

I'm still pondering an answer to it, and I've reached a fork in the road in how I can approach my answer. So I wanted to pause and clarify something.

Suppose that "if p then q" and "if q then r" are articulated for a particular idea (doesn't matter what they are) in 2012. But suppose that it's only in 2013 where someone comes along and says well, "if p then r!"

Was "if p then r" formulated in 2013 or in 2012?

A case can be made for both.

So I just wanted to say that when I get around to answering that question, I will assume that if premises are articulated in an earlier time that logically lead to conclusions not yet made in that earlier time, then we can date the conclusion from when the antecedent premises were articulated and not when someone got around to actually spelling out that conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
If Calvin taught "the Church can't err" then he would not have been a reformer. In fact, there would have been no Counter-Reformation (also the Catholic Revival or Catholic Reformation) during Trent. A reformation is necessary where there has been error and corruption.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Do you think all or most RC's believe and practice everything your church teaches? Do RC's "pick and choose" what doctrines and practices they will believe and honor?

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Glad you made the distinction that Roman Catholic and Catholic are not the same things.

Since it appears you believe essentially the same things as the RCC that means you also believe error. This charge is not based on my opinion but Scripture. If you know Scripture well enough then you would know Scripture never mentions Mary's conception nor does it claim she was without sin. It makes no exception for her in any way. She was also not a life long virgin given that Matt 13:55-56 specifically tells us the names of some of her children.

We could get into the roots of papacy if you want to but given this topic is not about that I will hold off. You have enough on your plate :)

Daniel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

The Church doesn't pick and choose and that's what counts. Not man and his personal interpretation. Man is free to reject the grace that is offered to him.

I can guarantee you that even the Pope sins and so did every Apostle EVEN AFTER THEY WERE AN APOSTLE.

A Roman Catholic is a Catholic, Roman is just the Latin rite of Catholicism.

There is nothing universal about your beliefs since you (or some other anonymous) admitted there was nobody in history prior to the Reformation who stated justification was a forensic concept. Those two words (justification and forensic) were not used until the reformers came along.

You don't understand why the reformers were called reformers. They thought they were trying to reform THE ONE TRUE CHURCH. They went beyond trying to reform certain problems in the church that had nothing to do with the teaching of faith and morals. The reformers created a whole new form of Christianity with no connection to history and biblical truth.

cwdlaw223 said...

Error and corruption yes, but there wasn't error and corruption in Rome's teaching. IT's the same now since the beginning. Nobody denies there have been bad Popes and Bishops and always will be (just as Peter denied Christ when Christ needed him), but that doesn't change the teaching. God uses sinful man all the time and apparently you don't like that fact.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it a scam that Tetzel and Pope Leo X came up with to offer indulgences so that the money collected could pay for reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica?
This was only possible because of the corrupt doctrine of indulgences.

cwdlaw223 said...

Let me guess, you think an indulgence is the ability to buy a dead person out of purgatory or an alive person to commit future sins without punishment, don't you? Seems obvious since the word indulgence has a negative connotation.

Once again, your facts are wrong.

Daniel said...

Matt 13:55-56 doesn't prove what you think it does.

"55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters,
are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"

First, the Greek word adelphoi is ambiguous in that it can mean “blood brothers” or the vague “kin” or even “friends.”

Let's dig deeper, and start with who all is at the crucifixion:

Matt 27:56 KJV "56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children."

Mark 15:40 KJV "40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome"

John 19:25 KJV "25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."

Let's pause for a second at this verse and zoom in even closer. It could mean: a) There are four women present, all of which are named Mary except the Virgin Mary's sister or b) The Virgin Mary has a sister named Mary who is married to Clopas (spelling varies) or c) sister means 'sister in law' and Mary wife of Clopas is the sister in law of the Virgin Mary (either either through Mary or through Joseph).

Now, the Greek clears this up a little bit and dispenses with this supposed fourth woman. Keeping the Greek word order, we see "Stood moreover by the cross of Jesus the mother of him AND the sister of the mother of him the Mary of Clopas AND Mary Magdalene." There's no kai which is to say the conjunction AND separating the sister of Christ's mother from Mary of Clopas.

So now that we know there are only three listed by John, does Mary have a sister named Mary? Unlikely. Which we can conclude with the most reasonable certainty that Mary of Clopas is both Christ's aunt and the mother of James the less and Joses--and from Matthew 13, we can then conclude she is also the mother of Simon, Judas, and at least two girls."

So the correct translation of Matt 13:55-56 would be "55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his kin, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his kin, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"


And that is the only explanation that makes Jude 1:1 make sense, because if James the Lesser really is Christ’s blood-brother (Gal 1:19), then Jude would also be Christ’s blood brother so we would expect Jude 1:1 to read “Jude, a servant and brother of Jesus Christ…” Instead of what we have that says, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…”

That and I cheated.

The eternal virginity of Mary is strongly implied by the 2nd century The Protoevangelium of James, and can be deduced from a remark by Hegesippus on Clopas being an uncle of Jesus.

Of course, I also believed this when I was a Calvinist because Mary being ever-virgin is part of the Calvinist Second Helvitic Confession that is part of the Presbyterian Church of the USA's Book of Confessions.

Restless Pilgrim said...

I guess my consternation stems from the fact that it seems to me like you're saying two different things:

1. The Christian may not forgive
"If he refuses to forgive then God will not forgive him"

2. The Christian will always eventually forgive
"If that person refuses to forgive then God will not leave them in that position but will continue to convict and chastise them until they do"

So is it (1) or (2)? Since you wouldn't say something self-contradictory, should I assume that (1) is true, but the situation will always ultimately become (2)? Put simply, will the Christian always eventually forgive? A simple yes/no would really help me out here and clear things up.

Having said that, I can see why you'd have a problem with this question.

It's hard to accept (1) and hold onto Calvinism ("Sola Fide", "Eternal Security" etc). Nobody can enter Heaven unforgiven, right?

On the other hand, asserting (2) removes all force (and sense) from Jesus' words. Jesus should have just said "Guys, you really should forgive one another. My Father is going to make you do it one way or another". This statement would make far more sense to me rather than having Jesus make an empty threat about a situation which could never actually come about.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just being thick and not seeing something in your answer which responds to this. Either way, I'd appreciate some clarification please.

Anonymous said...

Here are some reasons for Mary not being a perpetual virgin and had other children beside Jesus:
When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19

There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.

Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19. If he meant cousin or kinsman he would have used the word anepsios or sungenis. He used the word-Adelphos- a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if all Christians will always forgive. I do know that those who do not are sinning by not doing so.

You really should study Scripture and read some good books on what Jesus meant. I know Roman Catholics don't get much Scriptural teachings in their churches which means you will have to go outside your church to understand what Jesus meant in His teachings.

BTW- why don't you turn to your magesterium for answers?

Barbara said...

Anonymous
Matt 13:55
It list the brother of Jesus not the children of Mary.
The text was talking about the relation of Jesus when it refers to the brother of Jesus. Jesus was raised in Hebrew culture both Hebrew and Aramaic did not have a words for uncle, nephew, cousin it is a very common in Hebrew culture to call nephew uncle and cousin called each other brother we see it in Gen.14:14 are uncle and nephew in relation but they call each other brothers. This was very common because they don’t have any word for cousin. So Jews as they are writing as Saint Matt even though he is writing in Greek, he is writing the conversations of the Jewish folk and this is the way they spoke they use the word brother for extended relation
Matt Gospel makes it very clear that these are not the uterine brother of the Lord. Because if you go to Matt 27:56 you see the same you see the same James and Joseph mentioned again and this time it tells us who their mother is, it is Mary who is also in Matt 28:2 referred to as the other Mary and according to John 19, she is a relative to Mary or a sister of Mary. But for James and Joseph we were told who their mother is in Matt 27:56 and it is not Mary the Mother of the Lord
John Chapter 19:25 she is called Mary the wife of Clopas,
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
Most important Chapter 27 and 28 clearly say it is not Mary the mother of Jesus

When Jesus dying on the cross, as a Jewish tradition following the 4th commandment the next older brother would have to take care of Mary, Jesus would’ve trusted His Mother to his siblings if Mary had other children beside Jesus. St. Athanasius said in the 4th century when he exegesis this text he pointed out not only that absurd to say that Jesus would’ve had other brothers because Jesus would not have given Mary to John but also Mary would not have leave her children. We have to remember this is a different culture than today. In our culture we through way our kids and parent in their old age that was not the case in OT Mary would’ve been very young in that time and she would not as Saint Athanasius pointed out had left her other Children if she had other children. Bottom line she didn’t have other children and hence on one level Jesus is taking care of her when he gives her to John

Anonymous said...

Barbara,
The gospels were written in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic. In Greek there are words for blood brothers and found in. The word for brothers means brothers from the same mother or father.

In regards to giving His mother to John and not to other family members may be due to the fact that they were not nearby and may not have been around. Since John was a trusted disciple what better person to give the care of His mother to?

Keep in mind in this culture to have many children was considered a blessing of God.

Daniel said...

Actually in the Septuagint of Genesis 13, Abram says "we are adelphoi" to Lot, showing that in Koine Greek it wouldn't be uncommon to use adelphoi for the general word kinsmen.

http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/genesis/13.htm

Now will you address my points on geneology that I cited or is that going to be ignored while I chase your rabbit about other words for cousin?

cwdlaw223 said...

Until this guy recognizes that Christ left us more than scripture you're wasting your time with him. Nothing you could say or prove to him will change his belief that his interpretation of scripture is correct. Mary and the Pope are secondary issues. If you can't resolve the authority of Christ's Church you'll always have Joseph Smith and Ellen White importers like this.

Scriptural ping pong is worthless.

Restless Pilgrim said...

>I don't know if all Christians will always forgive

Thank you for being humble enough for to say that you don't know. That's big of you. Does this mean that you're retracting (2)?

Either way, you seem to now assert that it's at least possible for a Christian to withold forgiveness. If that's at least a possibility, doesn't that blow Sola Fide and Eternal Security out of the water (assuming that you agree someone can't enter Heaven with unforgiven sin)?


>You really should study Scripture and read some good books on what Jesus meant.

...and let someone else interpret Scripture for me?


> I know Roman Catholics don't get much Scriptural teachings in their churches which means you will have to go outside your church to understand what Jesus meant in His teachings.

Well, that's not incredibly insulting...

I find your statement rather ironic since you've gone back and forth over just a single verse (Mark 11:25). Can you please look in one of these books explain and reconcile the verse with Calvinism for me?

Thanks, but every Sunday I hear more Scripture proclaimed than I ever heard at my former Protestant congregation. I also have some wonderful teachers (both ancient and contemporary). I start Greek lessons at the end of the Summer.


>BTW- why don't you turn to your magesterium for answers?

I'm not asking out of dumbfounded ignorance. Mark 11:25 makes perfect sense to me...from within the framework of Catholic theology. I can take the Jesus' words at face value.

However, I can't see how it can make any kind of sense from within your theological framework. This is why I'm asking you to explain how you understand this verse and how it interacts with the 16th Century Reformation doctrines to which you hold. Does that make sense?

cwdlaw223 said...

Better than one man who thinks he can exegete scripture on his own with an incomplete Bible and an English translation.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
You wrote-"The eternal virginity of Mary is strongly implied by the 2nd century The Protoevangelium of James,.." is also known as "The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel? Which means its a false gospel.

"Hegesippus' works are now entirely lost, save eight passages concerning Church history quoted by Eusebius," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_%28chronicler%29) So how would you know that "Clopas being an uncle of Jesus"?

Why would you use spurious works to support the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Anonymous said...

Restless,
How could "Sola Fide and Eternal Security out of the water" given that it is God who is at work in the elect and will bring it to completion on the day of Christ? Are we to believe that God is incapable of dealing with an hardened heart?

If someone is of the elect how could he then be denied heaven (if he does not forgive) given that God has pre-ordained his election to salvation before the foundation of the world? How would that work?

You would be better off to let Rome interpret Scripture for you rather than trying it yourself.

You are asking out of "dumbfounded ignorance" in regards to Mark 11:25. Your questions show you don't understand what Jesus is teaching.

Restless Pilgrim said...

> How could "Sola Fide and Eternal Security out of the water" given that it is God who is at work in the elect and will bring it to completion on the day of Christ?

We've been through Catholic teaching on Grace before. You should know that we also assert that salvation is by grace.

Sola Fide excludes the role of works in salvation. This passage says that if you don't do something (forgive your brother) you won't be forgiven by God (saved). Please explain.


>Are we to believe that God is incapable of dealing with an hardened heart?

Wait, are you now saying that someone with a hardened heart who has refused to forgive his brother will have his sins forgiven him by God? Please reconcile that with Jesus' words.


>If someone is of the elect how could he then be denied heaven (if he does not forgive) given that God has pre-ordained his election to salvation before the foundation of the world? How would that work?

Jesus says if a man doesn't forgive his brother he himself won't be forgiven, denying himself Heaven.


>You are asking out of "dumbfounded ignorance" in regards to Mark 11:25. Your questions show you don't understand what Jesus is teaching.

Classy.

Please explain this passage to me then. As I've said, this passage makes perfect sense in a Catholic paradigm, but I'm at a loss as to how Jesus' words make any sense for the Calvinist.

Please don't just assert your doctrines or quote from elsewhere in the Bible. Just explain to me what Jesus is saying.

Here's what I'd say: Jesus is asking us to imitate the gracious forgiveness of God. He tells us to forgive that we ourselves may be forgiven. If we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven and will separate ourselves from God.

Anonymous said...

Scripture tells us that the elect are elected for salvation before they were born. Now if forgiveness keeps one out of heaven that must mean they forgive all before they die. Those that are not elect will not forgive.

There is no work that a man can do to save himself.

What is the official interpretation by Rome on Mark 11:25? What do they say it means? Please cite your references to Rome so I can know you understand it correctly so I know what the Catholic paradigm is.

Barbara said...

Anonymous
May 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM
You Said
The gospels were written in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic. In Greek there are words for blood brothers and found in. The word for brothers means brothers from the same mother or father.
====================
I did n't say that the Gospel was written in Hebrews or Aramaic. What I said The writers were RECORDING a Jewish CONVERSATION "they Said" and this is who people spoke in Jewish and Aramaic culture spoke.
-------------------------
yuo said
In regards to giving His mother to John and not to other family members may be due to the fact that they were not nearby and may not have been around. Since John was a trusted disciple what better person to give the care of His mother to?
=========================
This claim portrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). Jesus new Peter is going to deny Him before the cock crows , He knew that the Gospel is going to record the story of the woman who anointed his head with the costly oil, He knew that he is going to be betrayed and how is His betrayer and I can go on. If James the brother of Jesus in Gal 1:19 were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.
beside the point you did not answer Athanasius question would Mary leave her children and go live with John?
-----------------------------------
you siad
Keep in mind in this culture to have many children was considered a blessing of God.
=================================
you also have to keep in mind the Jewish Law
Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then "take [Mary] his wife" according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.
Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.


cwdlaw223 said...

The "elect" are a metaphhor for Catholics! I couldn't resist!!!! :)

1,400 years for this non-sense to be interpreted from scripture and now man is pinball without any free will to resist grace.

Anonymous said...

Barbara,
Jesus also might have spoken Greek. This also brings up other issues if Jesus spoke in Aramaic then how do we know if the rest of the gospels are accurate in what they tell us if Jesus spoke in Aramaic while the gospels were written in Greek? For example, maybe there is no word for rock in the regards to Peter. If that is true, then Peter was not the rock as your church claims.

There is a word for brother in the Hebrew language:” The word אח (ahh - the "hh" is pronounced hard as in the "ch" in the name Bach) means brother. The word אחים (ahhiym) is the masculine plural form meaning "brothers". http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/13_home.html

What would have been the Aramaic word or words used to communicate a blood brother or sister?
If you are going to make this kind of claim you need to have some documentation for it.
There are only 2 possible meanings for “for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament.” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1271
Adelphos is the word used for brothers in Matthew 13. It never means cousins.

The “Mary’s” of Matthew 27-28 is to complex to go into here.

Jesus may have “knew what was in man” but that does not mean He knew everything about them in an exhaustive sense during His earthly ministry. He had limited knowledge. For example, He did not know the time of His return. For example, nowhere in the gospels does Jesus mention someday His brother James would be the author of the epistle by that name and the key leader in the Jerusalem church (Ac 15:13–21).

Mary is not depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Luke 1:34 does not mean that. You are taking passages out of context and making them mean something they were never intended to mean. None of those passages have anything to do with the Holy Spirit being the spouse of Mary.

Who in the first 500 years of church history ever referred to Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

You have a fallible collection of books. How do you even know your translation is accurate when the original books don't exist. Good luck with that epistemological problem with your human based, non-supernatural worldview. Man all alone!!!!

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
You just shot yourself in the foot. We both are in the same boat given that the originals no longer exist. Your translations are not done from the originals.

Daniel said...

A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament... Adelphos is the word used for brothers in Matthew 13. It never means cousins

Is that word used anywhere for cousin in any Koine Greek work? Yes. Is it used as cousin in any Koine Greek Biblical work? Yes indeed! See Septuagint 1 Chronicles 23:22!

Now that's I've utterly dismantled that argument, let's proceed with dismantling some others.

You brought up the more precise anepsios from which we get the English words niece and nephew according to Thayer's Lexicon or the word syggenēs

I only found anepsios one time in my {Protestant} Lexicon search, and it referenced Col 4:10 KJV which says "sister's son" which is to say "nephew." But at least the Jehovah's Witness Bible agrees with you!

Now for syggenēs. My {Protestant} Lexicon search found 12 times in the Protestant Bible that the word is used. Two times it's translated in the KJV as cousin. The other times, it is either kinsman (7 times), kinsfolk (twice), or kin (1 time).

By the way, the reason for the divergent English reading for Col 4:10 KJV versus Col 4:10 NIV etc. is that in the Vulgate (which is dated within 50 years of our earliest Greek manuscripts), Jerome translated the word into the Latin consobrinus which means maternal first cousin.

Contrast this with the Peshitta, that translates Col 4:10 as (read that right to left)"ܒܪ ܕܕܗ" which means 'son of [his] uncle' which is the only way to say cousin in Aramaic.

Which brings me back to Matt 13. Even if tradition is wrong (Papias and Irenaeus), that Matthew wasn't originally written in a Semitic tongue and translated, the Galilean villagers would have been speaking Aramaic.

So does the Aramaic for 'brother' clear things up?

No, not at all.

So if that word is ambiguous in Aramaic, and it's ambiguous in Greek, and our position is supported very solidly from my genealogy constructed based on details of the crucifixion, and our view is supported by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431, which was recognized by all the Calvinists who used the Second Helvitic Confession....

...who the hell are you to say it's a slamdunk that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters?

cwdlaw223 said...

Shot myself in the foot? Please. You fail to realize that the deposit of faith is with Rome and not your Church. You have absolutely nothing to guide you on this earth to determine what is scripture but the traditions of men. You have nobody in your denomination who would even dare try to make the claims by Rome. There is no oneness, holiness, apostolic, true and/or universalism in your church. They're all man made institutions who would never claim to be founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in history for you or Joseph Smith.

You have massive epistemological problems that you need to solve before you ever get to exegete scripture.

IF ROME IS WHAT IT SAYS IT IS, THEN THE CANNON IT DETERMINED IS CORRECT.

There is nothing supernatural in your world so you probably can't understand an orthodox worldview.

cwdlaw223 said...

A Church created by Christ and endowed with the Holy Spirit cannot err in teaching faith and morals just like scripture cannot err. Both are teaching from God himself!!! Only the medium and time is somewhat different. The supernatural still exists.

Daniel said...

I don't think it's fair to say that it's a "false gospel" because it isn't canonical. 1 Enoch isn't canonical but it is good enough for Jude to quote and good enough for Jude to know his audience will get the reference.

But if it's a forgery, it is still good evidence that Mary didn't have biological children after Jesus because one of the primary purposes of the Protoevangelian is to explain HOW IT CAME ABOUT THAT MARY DIDNT HAVE OTHER BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN.

If Mary did have at least seven biological children, the text would be recognized as an obvious forgery right away and wouldn't be as popular as it was.

If I meet someone at a party and they tell me they were a nurse for the birth of one of Obama's children, it would grab my attention. If they started to explain it was for their fifth child, I would dismiss it as crazy talk from a crazy person: everyone knows Obama has only 2 kids. And no more party invites for them.

But if she lied, and said it was for their first or second child, it would be very good evidence that there was a consensus that Obama only had two kids among our party's crowd. Especially true if at every party she's invited back and she's asked to tell the story.

Make sense?

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
The Aramaic argument fails because there is no proof Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. We can only go by what Matthew wrote in Greek and he used the word for blood brother. Case closed.

Barbara said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barbara said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barbara said...

Anonymous
@May 19, 2013 at 9:25 AM
you said
Jesus also might have spoken Greek. This also brings up other issues if Jesus spoke in Aramaic then how do we know if the rest of the gospels are accurate in what they tell us if Jesus spoke in Aramaic while the gospels were written in Greek? For example, maybe there is no word for rock in the regards to Peter. If that is true, then Peter was not the rock as your church claims.
========================
There are a lot of evidences in the gospel that tells us that Jesus spoke Aramaic like Matt 27:46 , Mark 5:41, MK 14 He say ABBA Aramaic for father also John 1:42 (you WILL be called Cephas) which is a Prophecy, Jesus will change Simon name to Peter . Evidence point that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek
Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.
In Aramaic there is word for rock (Kepha) "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." We know this because it is mentioned in Jn 1:42, and the name Cephas, which is derived from this is confirmed elsewhere as well (Gal. 1:16-19). Intervarsity Press confirms this (Kepha). . In Aramaic, Rock the pronoun and rock the noun are the same word - pronounced and spelled the same way. So Jesus would have said, "Thou art Keppa and on this Keppa I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Jesus Changed Simon name to Kapha (ROCK)
-----------------------------------
You said
He had limited knowledge. For example, He did not know the time of His return. For example, nowhere in the gospels does Jesus mention someday His brother James would be the author of the epistle by that name and the key leader in the Jerusalem church (Ac 15:13–2
=========================
Is Jesus God or Not.
It seems you are saying that His divine nature was trampled by His human nature. His human Nature never stopped Him from being God for one microsecond He experienced our weakness but never stopped being God "I and the Father are one" Jn 10"30
Jesus is FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN.
He knew very well the day and the hour of the end of time. He is God, and not only does he know when the world will end, he will end it. He didn't reveal the time to the Apostles because he wanted them to be ready always, as he wants us to be ready always.He is the Word become flesh precisely so he could suffer
The CCC put it succinctly in these 2 Paragraphs
474) By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109
Christ's human will
475) Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.
110 Cf. Council of Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559.
111 Council of Constantinople III: DS 556..
to be continued>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Barbara said...

Anonymous
@May 19, 2013 at 9:25 AM
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Continue
You said
There is a word for brother in the Hebrew language:” The word אח (ahh - the "hh" is pronounced hard as in the "ch" in the name Bach) means brother. The word אחים (ahhiym) is the masculine plural form meaning "brothers". http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/13_home.html
==================================
Lot ,Who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen 11.27-31) is called his brother in Gen 13.8 and 14.14-16.
The Hebrew and Aramaic "ah" was used for various types of relations: Cf. Michael Sokoloff, "A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" (Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 1990, p. 45.) Hebrew had no word for cousin. They could say "ben-dod" which means son of a paternal uncle, but for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as "the son of the brother of his mother" or, "the son of the sister of his mother". For complex Aramaic expressions see Sokoloff, p. 111 and 139.
----------------------------------
You said
Mary is not depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Luke 1:34 does not mean that. You are taking passages out of context and making them mean something they were never intended to mean. None of those passages have anything to do with the Holy Spirit being the spouse of Mary.
===================================
In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.
--------------------------------------------------
You Said
Who in the first 500 years of church history ever referred to Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit?
======================
If I provide you with writing that shows church fathers believed that Mary was ever virgin would except that ?

Daniel said...


Anonymous said...

Daniel,
The Aramaic argument fails because there is no proof Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. We can only go by what Matthew wrote in Greek and he used the word for blood brother. Case closed.


Fool and knave!

For the last time, in Koine Greek in the Bible, it can refer to:

Cousins: http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/1_chronicles/23.htm

Uncles and nephews:
http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/genesis/13.htm

Distant relatives:
http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/deuteronomy/23.htm

So no, just because it says adelphoi it does NOT have to mean 'blood brothers.'

Anna Vinsensia Koli said...

Anon

Act 2:7 said that " Are not all of these who are speaking galileans?

Jesus is GOD - he can speak any languages but not HIS DISCIPLES and those who listen to him.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
This is what I wrote to Barbara earlier. Maybe you missed it. Here is what a NT Greek scholar says about this word for brothers:

"There are only 2 possible meanings for “for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament.” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1271
Adelphos is the word used for brothers in Matthew 13. It never means cousins."

Daniel said...

First, that's not a Koine Greek scholar. "Dr. Miller is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University, where he earned a B.A. degree in speech and Bible. He earned his M.A. degree in speech communication from Texas Tech University, and his M.Div. and M.A.R. from the Harding School of Theology. He also is a graduate of Southern Illinois University, where he earned his Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Public Address."

Second, "There are only 2 possible meanings for “for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144)

is refuted in that very article when it says:

The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother (Gesenius, 1979, p. 27; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:31; Botterweck, 1974, 1:190). For example, Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was referred to as Jacob’s “brother” (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abram’s nephew Lot was said to be Abram’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14,16).

And I would like to pause to note that any honest person who takes the time to cite Gen 14 and Gen 29 would take the time to cite a case in the Septuagint where the friggin word actually means indisputably cousin like my example in 1 Chronicles. You can believe they were either uninformed, or lazy, or dishonest. I honestly don't care which one you side with there.

Next, "A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament.”

is a perfect example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Next, "In other words, no linguistic justification exists to support the notion that adelphoi could refer to the “cousins” of Jesus. "

That's simply not true. The word is ambiguous, and therefore its meaning is ambiguous. That doesn't mean linguistically one would PREFER translating it as cousins over brothers, but saying there's no justification is saying the word isn't ambiguous which is a falsehood--a lie.

"Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10)."

Already addressed that one.

"No such contextual evidence exists in the allusions to Jesus’ brothers in the New Testament, and is therefore an irrelevant comparison."

That ignores the genealogy problem, that if you have address, I confessed I've missed.

"While it is true that the Greek construction heos hou (until) does not necessarily imply that they engaged in sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, the rest of the New Testament bears out the fact that where this phrase followed by a negative occurs, it “always implies that the negated action did take place later”"

Do they mean that 'until' with a negation can't be used in Koine Greek unless it occurs? No one has ever made that assertion.

This is amateur hour.

Daniel said...

And just to be sure that whoever is making that 'until' argument based on the Koine Greek is a dumbass, I checked the LXX of 2 Samuel 6:23.

Yes, they are a dumbass.

http://apostolic.interlinearbible.org/2_samuel/6.htm

cwdlaw223 said...

Daniel -

You're dealing with a progressive and when they don't like an answer they refuse to admit they could be wrong. Even if you have mathematical certainty to prove them wrong it doesn't matter to them. Of course anonymous would use a source who's not an expert and then claim the "expert" is right. Just like Pelosi (an excommunicated Catholic) and Obama. No real difference in their thought process.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Matthew 13 is not referring back to any OT passages. Your quote does not refute the Greek scholar Kittle. You need to be honest with this. Your desire to protect your church error is making it impossible for you to rightly interpret Scripture.

Again, "Adelphos is the word used for brothers in Matthew 13. It never means cousins." The meaning of the word is not ambiguous and unclear.

Anonymous said...

The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.

The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.

Daniel said...

Anonymous, everyone has figured out your game on this. A paraphrase is as follows:

1. "Adelphoi never means cousin in Koine Greek."

I provide a reference that it can.

2. "Adelphoi never means cousin in Koine Greek in the Bible."

I provide a reference that it can.

3. "Adelphoi never means cousin in Koine Greek in the New Testament" (which may or may not be true, depending on the author's intent in Matt 13--but to further demonstrate your reasoning, let's pretend there's another place in Matthew we've overlooked that uses it at cousin.)

I provide a reference that it can.

4. Adelphoi never means cousin in the Book of Matthew. (Again, let's pretend I find a reference we've so far overlooked).

I provide a reference that it can.

5. Adelphoi never means cousin in the Thirtheenth Chapter of Matthew. (Again, let's pretend I find a reference we've so far over looked).

I provide a reference that it can.

6. Well, Adelphoi never means cousin in the paragraph that Matt 13:55-56 is found in!


So far, 1 and 2 have happend, and 3 is in contention. It establishes your deceitful game of shifting the burden of proof.

Granted, 4, 5, and 6 are fictional. There are no such clear cut references. But I thought this was a clever illustration on how you shift the burden of proof to make it more and more strict, as I continue to meet your standard.

And the standard that I've so far met in 1 and 2, make your assertion about 3 simply wrong.

The word might mean brother. The word does not have to mean brother.

It is ambigious. It will remain ambigious.

But that still leaves the context of the geneologies. If I made a mistake in them, be sure to point it out.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Do you believe there is anything supernatural on this earth in the present?

If so, what is the supernatural that you believe exists in the present?

Anonymous said...

Barbara,
If the HS is the spouse of Mary then that would mean Mary had 2 husbands at the same time. The idea that the Spirit of God was the spouse of Mary is not even hinted at in Scripture.

Please show me a writing or church document from the 1st 500 years of the church history that shows the church believed Mary the HS was the spouse of Mary.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Define supernatural so I know what you mean.

cwdlaw223 said...

Supernatural (adj.): Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Please show us a group of people for the first 1,400 years afer Christ died that believed anywhere close to how you believe and worship? You're going to have a massive problem again with your sola scriptura claims because of cost and illeteracy.

If there is no group, which there isn't, please explain how you have such better exegesis of scripture? Is English a better translation? Man became smarter in logic and reasoning?

Restless Pilgrim said...

>Scripture tells us that the elect are elected for salvation before they were born. Now if forgiveness keeps one out of heaven that must mean they forgive all before they die. Those that are not elect will not forgive.

Earlier you said "I don't know if all Christians will always forgive". So is forgiveness automatic or not?


> What is the official interpretation by Rome on Mark 11:25? What do they say it means? Please cite your references to Rome so I can know you understand it correctly so I know what the Catholic paradigm is.

We've been through this before. There isn't a Catholic Infallible Study Bible. That's a Protestant mindset. That's not how Catholicism works.

If you want to understand the Catholic view of Justification and mortal/venial sin (1 John 5:17) you can read the Catechism or the canons of Trent.

But honestly, does "forgive if you have anything against anyone so that your Father...may forgive you your trespasses" really need that much unpacking? Catholics take that warning at face value. No theological gymnastics required.

I think I'm done on this thread. You're just stating your doctrinal position ("There is no work that a man can do to save himself.") and not interacting with my argument or showing me how Mark 11:25 makes sense within your theological framework.

I'll just leave you with the questions to which you've been unwilling to give me a direct answer:

* "Sola Fide excludes the role of works in salvation. This passage says that if you don't do something (forgive your brother) you won't be forgiven by God (saved). Please explain."

* "Can someone enter Heaven with unforgiven sin?"

* ."..are you now saying that someone with a hardened heart who has refused to forgive his brother will have his sins forgiven him by God? Please reconcile that with Jesus' words"

* can you please explain to me why Jesus would waste His time giving warnings about things which can never come about? How does that make sense? "If my Dad said "Don't you dare take the car out or there'll be hell to pay!", what is the value in that statement if it is physically impossible for me to take the car out?"

Within Catholic theology these have have questions have simple, common sense answers. How about Calvinism?

Daniel said...

The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.

Here is what you are overlooking:

Mary and Joseph could engage in relations anytime after they are betrothed. They don't have to wait until after the wedding feast.

From the Jewish Encylopedia: "After betrothal the bride might be taken to her husband's house and the nuptials celebrated either immediately or later (Gen. xxiv. 49-67; Judges xiv. 5 et seq.)."

So that Mary is astonished that she will conceive in the future, and inquires how this will be done is significant. It would be like a wife on their honeymoon has a vision that says she is going to conceive a child, and she can't figure out how. Uhhh...hello, it's your honeymoon. Only some extraordinary circumstance would preclude the obvious assumption that the woman was to engage in relations with her man, and make her inquisitively ask the question as to how that's gonna happen.

Now, you made an assertion that is very false, and laughably so.

Read Numbers chapter 30.

"To afflict oneself" is a phrase that means a commitment to fasting and refraining from relations. See Jacob Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15.

That this was a practice (married perpetual virgins) is acknowledged by Calvin's commentary on a different verse.

"When God forbade the high priest to marry any but a virgin, he did not wish to violate this rule, which is dictated by nature and reason; but, regard being had to age, He desired that modesty and propriety should be maintained in the marriage, so that, if the priest were of advanced years, he should marry a virgin not too far from his own age: but, if he were failing and now but little fitted for marriage on account of his old age, the law that he should marry a virgin was rather an exhortation to celibacy..."

Anonymous said...

Restless,
You asked: "is forgiveness automatic or not?"

I John 1:7 says that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. Is that automatic?

Col 2:13-14 says all our transgressions have been forgiven and the certificate of debt against us has been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. Is this automatic?

Must I do some thing to make these things happen?

What specifically is the sin that does not lead to death in I John 5:17?

Only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life enter heaven. See Rev 21:27

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Where in Scripture does it state any thing close to " a practice (married perpetual virgins).."? Its not in Numbers 30, Lev 18 or Exodus 19.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Show me any church in the first 200 years believed in papal infallibly, indulgences, purgatory and Mary was assumed into heaven and is to be prayed to?

cwdlaw223 said...

Where does scripture define itself or assert anything close to "sola scriptura" as a worldview?

Now that I defined the term supernatural for you, do you believe the supernatural exists on this earth in the present? If yes, do you believe there is anything supernatural about a Church created by Christ that exists on this planet today?

cwdlaw223 said...

"Show me any church in the first 200years believed in papal infallibly, indulgences, purgatory and Mary was assumed into heaven and is to be prayed to?"

Let's assume that I can't. However, I can clearly show you reams of historical information of people participating in the Mass and believing that Christ was present in the Eucharist from 200 AD to the Present.

You can't demonstrate one person that even comes close to your worldview until 1,400 AD. Why is that? Why did it take another 1,200 years for your "clear" theology to emerge? Are you smarter? If so, how? You can exegete scripture better? If so, how? Why does it take so long for your position to emerge?

If ROME IS WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE, all of your arguments against papal infallibility, indulgences, purgatory and Mary are MEANINGLESS. CHRIST HIMSELF WOULD BE IN CHARGE!!!!

BTW - Please define the word "indulgence" since I think you think it means something completely different than how the term was used in history.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Prayers to the Dead happened in Jewish times. That's one of the reasons Protestants got rid of the Deuterocanon because it gave support for this practice. Mary is a Saint and should be prayed to help us along. I hope when someone asks you to pray for them that you don't do it.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Roots of purgatory: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-roots-of-purgatory

An indulgence is nothing more than a punishment. So that was around as well. (You don't understand what the word means, you think it's a get out of jail free card).

Bodily Assumption and Infallibility are next.

When are you going to explain how the world was so wrong for 1,200-1,400 years????? Historically speaking, Christianity didn't emerge with your position first. It started with Rome's position.

Daniel said...

That was a reference to the Targum of that verse, not the verse itself.

In my haste I didn't clarify that it was Targum Pseudo Jonathan that clarifies what "afflict oneself" means: Afflict yourselves, from food, drink, ...and from sexual intercourse...

Read Numbers 30 again in the NLT translation while remembering that 'afflict yourselves' to Jews meant fasting from food and relations.

Now do you see it's a vow about consecrating oneself to virginity, even if one is married?

Restless Pilgrim said...

Your response just contained (i) statements of basic Christian belief (which I'm hardly going to deny) and (ii) a bunch of new questions. As far as I can see, at no point did you even come close to answering any of my questions or explaining to me how Jesus' words from Mark 11:25 fits into your theology.

This is why I find dialoguing with you frustrating. I ask a simple question and, instead of a direct answer, you talk around the issue. I mean, can you honestly look at your last response and say that you've answered any of my questions?

Maybe you really don't see why I'm getting frustrated? I'll try to explain using a different scenario and from the Protestant's point of view...

In a typical Catholic/Protestant exchange, the Catholic will go to the book of James and say "There you go, the Bible says 'We not saved by faith alone'". In order for the Protestant to successfully refute the Catholic he must not simply quote passages from Galatians, he must also explain to the Catholic the true meaning of James' epistle. Once he has done this he has demonstrated a coherent theology which makes sense of all the relevant Scriptural data.

So, back to our situation... It is not enough for you to simply quote other parts of Scripture, you need to help me make sense of Jesus' words (Mark 11:25). Those words coherently fit into my Catholic theology, but I don't understand how they can fit into yours. You need to show me how this passage interacts with your other beliefs because, from where I'm standing, it appears incompatible.

cwdlaw223 said...

Restless -

It's a metaphor! When pushed comes to shove anything Jesus says wasn't literal. :)

Everything Paul says is literal, just not Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Restless,
You may ask simple questions but the answers are far complex than you want them to be.
Its frustrating for me that all you give is your personal private interpretation but can never give me the official interpretation of your church.

If Christ died for all the sins of the elect because the elect have their names written in the book of life and salvation is all of God from start to finish then how would it be possible for a Christian who does not forgive not to be saved?

When God withholds forgiveness in the Christians life it is because the Christian has not forgiven. That does not mean the Christian has lost his salvation but that he does not experience God's forgiveness for his sins. Such a person will be under the disciple of God. See Hebrews 12:4-11.

As you can see this fits very well within Protestant theology.

I don't see how this verse helps you. Don't you have to go to a priest to be forgiven? Don't you have to do penance before you have forgiveness?

Restless Pilgrim said...

>You may ask simple questions but the answers are far complex than you want them to be.

Fair enough, but at least have a go at answering the question asked, don't just simply provide some statements pertaining to the topic under discussion. Have something you can point to and say "That's my answer to your question, right there!"


>Its frustrating for me that all you give is your personal private interpretation but can never give me the official interpretation of your church.

This is something we've tried to explain to you several times now, but you just don't seem to accept:

* The Catholic Church does not hand out an official Bible commentary. Daniel explained that here

* We don't need every little thing infallibly defined. I've explained that here

It appears you're acting under a misapprehension of how Catholicism works. It's not like the Church gives us a single, official, exhaustive exegesis of each verse. As I've said before, that's a Protestant mindset at work.

The Church is not a micromanager. It may surprise you but Catholic laity even go to Bible studies! Think of the Church as an umpire in a football game.

If you think we're misrepresenting Catholic teaching, please tell us. Otherwise please at least extend to us the privilege of explaining the Catholic Faith.


>If Christ died for all the sins of the elect because the elect have their names written in the book of life and salvation is all of God from start to finish then how would it be possible for a Christian who does not forgive not to be saved?

You're assuming here that those names were chosen before all time by God arbitrarily, rather than through foreknowledge. If God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), why are all men not saved?


When God withholds forgiveness in the Christians life it is because the Christian has not forgiven. That does not mean the Christian has lost his salvation but that he does not experience God's forgiveness for his sins.

Okay, this is the important one. If no other question is answered, this question absolutely must be answered:

Are you asserting then that someone can get into Heaven without God forgiving his sin?

Feel free to explain yourself, but this is a simple yes or no answer.

Also, what does it mean to "not experience God's forgiveness for his sins"? That's a little vague, so please spell that out for me a bit. What does that entail? Surely one experiences forgiveness of sins by entrance into Heaven, right?



>I don't see how this verse helps you. Don't you have to go to a priest to be forgiven? Don't you have to do penance before you have forgiveness?

I'm afraid that's not Catholic theology and you've got it backwards. This verse speaks to the situation where someone has wronged me, not the other way around.

Daniel said...

Show me any church in the first 200 years believed in papal infallibly, indulgences, purgatory and Mary was assumed into heaven and is to be prayed to?

Infallibility:

"I [Apostle Peter] lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end,...Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church. Therefore hear him, as knowing that he who grieves the president of the truth, sins against Christ, and offends the Father of all. " Pseudo-Clement to Apostle James c. 200 AD (No later than 231 AD, because Origin quotes part of the Pseduo-Clemintine Recognitions in his commentary on Genesis in that year).

Now, that's a forgery, but like I've said before: in order for the forgery to work, it must deal with assumptions already commonly believed: that Peter was the first pope, that he had the supreme power to act vicariously as God when ruling the Church, and that Clement came after Peter. Now, this is obviously a forgery because it doesn't mention Cletus or Linus, and James was martyred before Peter was.

Purgatory: ""Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:14 (post A.D. 202).

Mary's Assumption:

Psalm 132:8 Mary is an Ark, because she contained the bread that fell from heaven (Jesus compares himself to the manna in John 6), and he was the law. He was the rod of Jesse (analogous to Aaron's budding rod. We know that this isn't the literal ark of the covenant because it's sitting in a monastery in Ethiopia under the care of some non Chalcedonian Orthodox.

And...she's the most venerated saint in Christendom--you mean to tell me we don't have any idea of where her relics are? We know where the bones of Abraham are, Isaac, Jacob--but not Mary the Mother of God???

Of course we don't...they aren't on earth.

That's why we see her in heaven in Rev 12.

Which, can't be in my opinion the Church because the 'children' of Rev 12:17 are the Church because the Church are the ones who testify of Jesus.

She can't be Israel because the Bible already describes Israel giving birth to the Messiah this way: " "Before she [Israel] was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son"

Contrast with: "And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."

So what other than Israel gave birth to the Messiah?

Mary.

And v 6 "...fled into the wilderness..." is the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents, which is what Rev 12:16 describes in symbolic language.

Anonymous said...

Restless,
If you don't have "official Bible commentary" and "don't need every little thing infallibly defined" then how am I to know you are truly representing RC theology? Please explain how this is supposed to work.

The Scripture does not say that God chooses arbitrarily but that He chose before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4. One of the implications of this is that man has no influence on the choosing.

God’s choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desires. Scripture does not tell us why all men are not saved rather it does say some are prepared for destruction. Rom 9:22

How does your theology deal with this? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

No one can enter heaven without complete forgiveness which is part of the benefits of being written in the book of life. When Christ died for sin, he died for all the sins of the elect. Those confessed and not confessed. It is our union in Christ that gains us heaven. Romans 8:1 and verse 38-39

To not experience the forgiveness of sin by God means there is a sense of guilt and shame present in the life. There could also be a dulling for spiritual things such as prayer, study of Scripture and worship.

Restless Pilgrim said...

>If you don't have "official Bible commentary" and "don't need every little thing infallibly defined" then how am I to know you are truly representing RC theology? Please explain how this is supposed to work.

I would invite you to look back at the links I gave since we both explained ourselves there, but I'll briefly respond with a few points:

1. The Catholic Faith is found in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium (Councils etc).

2. The Church has given guidelines for Scripture interpretation.

3. Finally, why are you doubting us in the first place?That seems odd to me. For example, do you really need us to give you a document citations to prove that we believe in the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity?

4. If you really doubt us, check what we say in the Catechism. It's the most compact and comprehensive explanation of the Catholic Faith.


>No one can enter heaven without complete forgiveness which is part of the benefits of being written in the book of life.

Okay, you're almost at the point of answering my question. You have now made the following statements:

1. "When God withholds forgiveness in the Christians life it is because the Christian has not forgiven"
2. "No one can enter heaven without complete forgiveness"

So...a Christian may withhold forgiveness, which means that God withholds forgiveness and we know that one cannot enter into Heaven without complete forgiveness.

So, if a Christian withholds forgiveness, what has caused that person's damnation? Something he did or something God did? Put another way, is Jesus offering his listeners in Mark 11:25 a real choice?


> It is our union in Christ that gains us heaven.

Absolutely, and how is union with Christ maintained? John 15 says that it's by bearing fruit (works/faith working through love).


>To not experience the forgiveness of sin by God means there is a sense of guilt and shame present in the life. There could also be a dulling for spiritual things such as prayer, study of Scripture and worship.

But not damnation? You just said that nobody can enter Heaven without being forgiven...

Anonymous said...

I know most of doctrines the RC. Its just that when we study them closely with Scripture we find many times a major disconnect.

I don't doubt you believe in the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity. Its other things like election that I don't understand what you believe. Do you believe in election and that God has made some for destruction?

How does this principle work when you interpret Scripture--"Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”? What specifically is this "living tradition of the whole church" on election and Rom 9:22? Do you consult commentaries from centuries ago and church documents from all the centuries to determine what these election and vessels of destruction means?

Remember, even the Christian who is not forgiving, God is working in that man to repent and forgive.
This man is not condemned.

Keep in mind that we all die with unconfessed sin and yet there will be many in heaven.

Jesus in Mark 11:25 wants His followers to always forgive and never think they can justify being unforgiving. The consequences would be to forfeit God's forgiveness and blessing here.

All those who are written in the book of life are forgiven.

Restless Pilgrim said...

> Do you believe in election and that God has made some for destruction?

To quote Dave Armstrong, "The Catholic Church believes in the predestination of the elect, or those who are saved; it only denies that God predestines anyone to hell from eternity without any consideration of their own free will decisions"

You'll find this teaching in Part 1 of the Catechism:

CCC #1037: God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"


> How does this principle work when you interpret Scripture--"Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”? What specifically is this "living tradition of the whole church" on election and Rom 9:22? Do you consult commentaries from centuries ago and church documents from all the centuries to determine what these election and vessels of destruction means?

It's everything: Scripture itself, the consensus patrum, the liturgy of the Church, the Councils...

***

Now, in the next section you do it again....you write a series of statements without actually answering either of my two questions...


>Jesus in Mark 11:25 wants His followers to always forgive and never think they can justify being unforgiving. The consequences would be to forfeit God's forgiveness and blessing here.

Okay, but the question is: what are the consequences of forfeiting God's forgiveness? I would suggest that it's common sense that someone who is without God's forgiveness cannot enter Heaven. Would you disagree?

If you can give me a clear answer to that then we can get onto my second unanswered question.

Anonymous said...

How can God not predestined some to he'll in light of Romans 9:22?

Do you believe man has a will totally unaffected by sin? Is man's will neutral?

I don't know how many times I have to explain Mark 11:25. You already have my answers from a number of different angles.

Anonymous said...

What does the living tradition, the liturgy and the council's say what Mark 11:25 means?

Do you consult all these works to determine the meaning of a verse or passage?

Restless Pilgrim said...

All I see is questions in your response. If you've answered my question about Mark 11:25, I've either missed it or your answer has seemed too vague for me. To quickly resolve this confusion, please just answer this question:

Someone who is without God's forgiveness cannot enter Heaven. Do you agree or disagree?

Please give me something clear an unambiguous.

Anonymous said...

All that are in Christ are forgiven, justified, cleansed by the blood of Christ, names written in the book of life and will be in heaven after this life.

It is true that no one will be in heaven that is not forgiven. Forgiveness is only possible by faith in Christ who paid the price for sin.

cwdlaw223 said...

"The Scripture does not say that God chooses arbitrarily but that He chose before the foundation of the world."

Hugh??? That is arbitrary because it leaves no room for man to resist grace or not. Pure robots. How can you not see this? Remember, man can do NOTHING IN YOUR WORLDVIEW NOT ONE THOUGHT, WORK OR EFFORT ON HIS OWN TO HAVE FAITH OR REPENT.

Anonymous said...

I can understand your distaste for this biblical doctrine but that is exactly what Scripture tells us. YOU HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER.

It is only by God's love and mercy that anyone is saved.

cwdlaw223 said...

Please tell us WHY you believe that the Magesterium must interpret every word of scripture?

What is the basis for this belief/condition? It's not the Magesterium itself.

Scripture is to be read as a whole, not in a piece-meal fashion as you do. Can you remove your lungs and still breathe? No. Just as you can't read scripture in a piece meal fashion and understand the Gospel.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

So who was the first person outside of scripture who believed like you do if scripture is so clear? Who believed in double predestination?

Name one body of believers.

What I disdain is intellectual pride, not scripture. What I disdain is progressivism that ignores history so that a false religion is created off the back of Catholicism and dooms such people to hell.

Tell us why your exegesis came about and yet for 1,400 years nobody on this planet thought that God only saved the "elect."

Are you smarter? Where you given the gift of prophecy like Ellen White? Explain you thinking.

cwdlaw223 said...

Single predestination is congruent with Catholicism. The heresy of Double predestination is not.

Technically scripture doesn't say that God chose arbitrarily. I will give you that, however, that's not why you used that statement. You used that statement to support your double predestination belief that God CHOSE the elect.

cwdlaw223 said...

We Catholics believe in a sort of single predestination, as well. Basically, the saved are saved solely through the grace of God, while the damned are damned by their own free will.

Think of a pond in which there are two drowning men. You reach your hand out to one, he accepts it, and you pull him in. You saved him, he didn't save himself. You reach your hand out to the other, and he pushes your hand away, and drowns. You didn't kill him, he killed himself.

Grace works (somewhat) similarly: God is the primary actor, and our responsibility to accept His Grace and cooperate with it, rather than to resist or reject Him. So God's predestination consists of:

(1) Perfect foreknowledge of who will accept or reject Him;
(2) A desire to save all (including those who will ultimately damn themselves);
(3) Active involvement in saving the saved.

So in regards to our salvation, we can say that God knew we would be saved, desired us to be saved, and brought it about. That's predestination. But God doesn't desire that the damned reject Him, anymore than you would desire a drowning man to refuse your outstretched hand. He simply respects their free will enough to permit them to damn themselves. In contrast, double predestination supposes that God wills the damned not to be saved.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Do you believe that Catholics are semi-pelagian? If so, please briefly explain why. I suspect you believe Catholics are semi-pelagian just like RC Sproul does by butchering the definition of this word.

Anonymous said...

Double predestination is biblical. Either you are predestined to eternal life in Christ or to eternal destruction. There is no 3rd option.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

No its not. In fact, it's a theological novum by man. How do I know this?

1). Scripture, when read as a whole, would make no sense if there was double predestination,
2) Nobody in history until the reformers came on the scene believed in such nonsense,
3) if scripture were so clear on such an important issue there would have been some historical evidence to support an interpretation of scripture for double predestination yet there is none.

Now please explain why there is a historical gap for your exegesis! Man was wrong for 1,400 years and your exegesis is just better? Just say so.

cwdlaw223 said...

Please don't show your ignorance and try to claim Saint Augustine, a Roman Catholic, believed in double predestination like you do.

If you think he did, then name another person. Certainly there should be more than one or two people.

Anonymous said...

It does not matter if the church believed something for 1400 years or someone famous believed it to. What matters is what does the Scripture say.
Either a man is destined for hell or heaven. God knows and that is what matters.

BTW- you could not believe unless God gave you the power to believe. Left to yourself, you would not since you would be dead in your trespasses and sins. In such a state you are doomed.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will and that man can cooperate with God's grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort?

Daniel said...

Do you believe that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will...

No!

and that man can cooperate with God's grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort?

Ehhh...

Grace precedes and enables man's cooperation with other grace, so that man does, by grace, labor and make effort to keep his faith.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

Restless Pilgrim said...

I would appreciate it if my single question did not get lost among all this...

"Someone who is without God's forgiveness cannot enter Heaven. Do you agree or disagree?"

Daniel said...

Restless,

I think Anonymous answered that one with: "It is true that no one will be in heaven that is not forgiven...."

I have a hard time keeping score though. ;-)

Anonymous said...

On what basis is forgiveness based on? In other words must God have a basis to forgive us for breaking His law?

Restless Pilgrim said...

Please, no more stalling. It is time to make a decision. Is God's forgiveness a necessary prerequisite for entering into Heaven or not?

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

"It does not matter if the church believed something for 1400 years or someone famous believed it to. What matters is what does the Scripture say."

The statement above says it all. Pure theological progressivism and liberalism.

(1) Continued belief demonstrates oneness,
(2) Continued belief demonstrates universalism,
(3) Continued belief demonstrates that people interpret scripture in the same way,
(4) The Church was much closer to the actual practice and interpretation of scripture than any Protestant who tried to come along and create a new form of Christianity off the back of Catholicism.

Scripture does not "say" anything. Scripture needs to be interpreted. You presume that scripture can only be interpreted your way and that your way is the only correct interpretation of scripture. That's the same fallacy that the Reformers ran into and why Protestantism fractured into hundreds of denominations. There is no oneness in Protestantism even on big issues such as baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, etc.

You truly believe that your mind is special and that you can interpret scripture better than people who were only one or two people removed from Apostles. What makes your interpretation so special?

Scripture doesn't speak and to ignore continued belief on major issues takes a massive amount of intellectual pride.

You seriously can't explain why your interpretation 1,400 years later is better. Why is it better? Did man learn something different?

Your scholastic/progressive statement above works with science when man continues learning new ideas and discoveries. Scripture hasn't changed, what's changed is your interpretation of scripture.

The only thing the Reformers found with their wacky interpretation was theolgoical relativism and a new form of Christianity built upon the back of Catholicism. This is way you're scared to death of history because history proves your interpretation wrong so you avoid it.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Are Catholics semi-pelagian? If so, please give your definition of semi-pelagianism.

Don't forget to tell us HOW your interpretation of scripture is better than 1,400 years of history. Tell us how you do it. Better logic? You study longer? More resources? We want to know.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Define a semi-pelagian.

Restless Pilgrim said...

Please, no more stalling. It is time to make a decision. Is God's forgiveness a necessary prerequisite for entering into Heaven or not?

Daniel said...

A semi-pelagian is one who believes that man by his own powers can commence his conversion, but can not fully accomplish it without the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Do you believe that?

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

We're asking you there anonymous!

Protestants have a nasty habit of calling Catholics semi-pelagian without properly defining the word. Catholics called semi-pelagianism a heresy years ago and guys like RC Sproul still assert Catholics are semi-pelagian.

Are Catholics semi-pelagian UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF THE WORD (NOT OURS)? IF SO, HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE WORD?

Your answer should be Catholics are not semi-pelagian, but I doubt you'll admit this fact. Catholics fully admit there is a mystery between grace and free will. Catholics deny that man by himself and by his own free (and without grace) can cause his initial conversion.


Restless Pilgrim said...

Am I writing this in invisible ink? C'mon, I first asked this question days ago...

Please, no more stalling. It is time to make a decision. Is God's forgiveness a necessary prerequisite for entering into Heaven or not?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 251   Newer› Newest»