# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  God's Sovereignty in Hardening Reprobate Hearts

## Sola_Fide

> *God's Sovereignty in Hardening Reprobate Hearts*
> by Bob Higby
> 
> "Therefore he has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." (Rom. 9:18)
> 
> "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21)
> 
> "Then I will harden Pharaohs heart, so that he will pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD." (Ex. 14:4)
> What is involved in Gods act of hardening the hearts of reprobate souls? Is it merely a withdrawal of external worldly constraint, as so many expositors would have us believe? Those who labor diligently to uphold such a position are operating with the long-cherished assumption that God does not create evil or wickedness in the hearts of creatures. So the only way to explain away the biblical assertion that God hardens hearts is to propose that God could not possibly have actually done anything within the heart! Supposedly, the Lord took away restraining circumstances that kept Pharoahs heart "in check."
> ...


http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=418

----------


## Theocrat

That is one of the themes which I was trying to establish in this thread a while ago.

----------


## TER

Thankfully, the God I worship and the God worshipped by the early Christian Church and the Church Fathers do not believe God is the cause of evil.

----------


## TER

*All That Comes From God Is Good, And Sin Is Evil* 

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich
_"And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1)._

Brethren, the first revelation about this world that Holy Scripture communicates to us is that the world proceeded from good and not from evil, from God and not from some power contrary to God and not from some imagined primordial mixture of good and evil. The second revelation, brethren, about this world is that everything that the good God created is good. The light is good; the firmament of heaven is good; the land is good; the sea is good; the grass, the vegetation and the fruitful trees are good; the heavenly lights- the sun, moon and stars-are good; the living creatures in the water and the birds in the air are good; all living beings according to their kind are good; the cattle, the small animals and the beasts of the earth are good. Finally, man - the master, under the lordship of God, over all created things - is also good. "And God saw that it was good." The appraiser of the value of this world is not and cannot be someone who views this world superficially and partially, but can only be He who views all of creation together and each part individually, He who knows their number, name, composition and essence incomparably better than all men on earth. "And God saw that it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). But, nevertheless, there have been men who have slandered the work of God, saying that this world is evil in its essence, that each individual creation is evil, and that matter, from which all earthly beings are formed, is evil. However, evil is found in sin, and sin is from the evil spirit; therefore, evil dwells in the spirit of evil and not in matter. This spirit, fallen from God, is the sower of evil in the world, from whence come the tares in God's wheat. The spirit of evil strives to use both the human spirit and material things in general as his weapons of evil. He is also the one who instills in the human mind the thought that the whole created world is evil and that matter, from which creation was formed, is fundamentally evil. He slanders God's works in order to conceal his own works; he accuses God in order not to be accused. O my brethren, let us guard ourselves from the cunning of the evil spirit. Let us guard ourselves in particular from the evil thoughts that he sows in our minds.

"And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25).

Brethren, only good works proceed from the good Creator. Therefore, let all those who say that both good and evil proceed from God be silent. After His every act, God Himself affirms that it is good. Six times He repeated that what He created was good, and finally, the seventh time, when He saw all in its entirety, He pronounced His judgment that all He had created "was very good" (Genesis 1:31). Therefore, in total He repeated seven times that everything was good that came into existence by His holy will. Is it not a great wonder that some people come up with the godless assertion that both good and evil equally proceed from God? God, as if He knew that such slanders would be cast against Him - or, better to say, that such slanders would be cast throughout the centuries - gave His defense in advance and repeated it seven times, for all times and for all generations. Evil comes from sin, and there is no sin in God. Therefore, God can do no evil. He is called the Almighty because He is powerful to do every good. Wicked and twisted are the commentators on God who claim that God is "Almighty'' because He can do both good and evil. God is the source of good and is darkened by nothing, and nothing can proceed from Him that is contrary to good. It is obvious to every normal man that evil is contrary to good. Know, brethren, that those who speak of duality in God, in the eternal Source of good, are those in whom is found the duality of good and evil. However, all those who love good, follow the path of goodness, and yearn for good have a clear revelation within themselves that God is good, and only good.

"And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1).

Brethren, everything that was created, and the means by which the pure and sinless God created it, is pure and sinless. Every creature of God is pure and sinless as long as it is turned toward God, as long as it is neither separated from God nor hostile to God. Every creature of itself praises and glorifies God as long as it is pure and sinless. That is why the Psalmist sings: "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Alleluia!" (Psalm 150:6). Every intelligent creature of God feels that its natural and primary purpose is to praise the Lord. Thus, brethren, people ask: "If this is so, from whence comes evil into the world?'' It comes from sin, and only from sin. Sin changed a bright angel into a devil. The devil willingly made himself a vessel of sin and then hurried to make other creatures of God similar vessels. By their own free choice, other angels consented to sin with the devil, and afterward the first people, Eve and Adam, consented. From this proceeded the mixture of good and evil in the world. However, even today, that which is of God in creation is good, as it was in the first days of creation. Poison came from sin, for sin is indeed poison, the most bitter poison that exists. Sin was the cause of the curse. It brought about the darkening of minds and caused created things to become hostile toward their Creator. It distanced man from God, and man from man, and man from nature, and nature from man. O my brethren, all that comes from God is good, and all that comes from sin is evil. No evil exists that is bound to God, and there exists no kind of evil that is not bound to sin. Many philosophers have examined the essence of evil, and because of their crude minds they have asserted that evil is in matter and that matter is evil. However, only we Christians know that sin is the essence of evil and that evil has no essence other than sin. It is obvious from this that if we desire to protect ourselves from evil, we must protect ourselves from sin.

"And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31).

Brethren, when all the parts of a building are good, then the building in its entirety is very good. Every single brick is good, and every stone, the mortar and the lime, and the beams and the pillars-but man is moved to admiration only when he views the entire structure. Oftentimes, a certain detail in the building seems unintelligible and inappropriate to him, but he forgets about this in a moment when he turns his gaze upon the whole. And, indeed, there are many details in this world, as well as in things and in events, that are unintelligible and inappropriate to us. Only when the entire thing as a whole is revealed to us do we understand and are reassured. We consider many of the sufferings and deprivations in our lives as truly ugly and senseless at the time they occur. However, when days and years pass, those very sufferings and deprivations shine as precious stones in our memory, illumining the later path of our life. Therefore, if something in God's creation offends you, look at the whole; if something in life embitters you, wait patiently with faith and hope for new days and years. And if this entire life seems painful and sorrowful to you, raise your spiritual eyes to the other world, and you will have peace and joy. For this entire visible world is not a perfect whole-the other world also exists. For it is said: "God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Even an artist directs the viewer to look at his painting from a distance, so that he may see it in all its beauty.

----------


## Theocrat

> Thankfully, the God I worship and the God worshipped by the early Christian Church and the Church Fathers do not believe God is the cause of evil.


Did God know that evil would exist in the world before He created it, TER?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thankfully, the God I worship and the God worshipped by the early Christian Church and the Church Fathers do not believe God is the cause of evil.


The god you worship is an idol.  It's not the God of the Bible who mercies who He will, and hardens who He will.

----------


## TER

> Did God know that evil would exist in the world before He created it, TER?


I don't know.  Ask Sola, he seems to know the mind of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know.  Ask Sola, he seems to know the mind of God.


What's the answer to the question TER?

----------


## TER

> What's the answer to the question TER?


Sola, I'm working in the ER right now taking care of someone critically ill.  I don't have time to explain to you why God is not the cause for evil and our sins.  I leave you and Theo to this thread.  Farewell.

----------


## shane77m

> Did God know that evil would exist in the world before He created it, TER?


I used to go to a church where a guy taught that the only way that God knows if you commit a sin is if the angels tell him. He went on to say that they would "squeal" on you. Nobody else except for my wife heard what he said or cared about what he said when I brought it up. We left the church.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I'm working in the ER right now taking care of someone critically ill.  I don't have time to explain to you why God is not the cause for evil and our sins.  I leave you and Theo to this thread.  Farewell.


Tough question isn't it?  If you admit that God knew there would be evil (as you would have to do if you believe that God knows everything), then He created the world knowing that there would be evil.  He could have created any world He wanted to, yet He chose to create this one.

If you deny that God knows everything, then you may as well not even pretend to worship the God of the Bible.

TER, you have to repent man.  You have to be converted from your idol worship.  I pray the sovereign God who makes the pots will put a heart of flesh in you!

PS- my sister is an ER nurse.  She's got unbelievable stories.

----------


## mosquitobite

Ezekiel 36:26

One of my favorite verses of all time.

Not commenting one way or the other on the topic.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ezekiel 36:26
> 
> One of my favorite verses of all time.
> 
> Not commenting one way or the other on the topic.


Yes.  Wonderful example of God's sovereignty in salvation.




> *Ezekiel 36:26
> 
> I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
> 
> *

----------


## Christian Liberty

I read the  OP, and I read TER's post as well.  Interesting stuff from both sides. 

Sola, since you accused me of using the same arguments as Arminians in another thread, let me be clear with you, I'm not an Arminian.  I actually think you're closer to the truth than any Arminian.  Nonetheless, I don't think the truth is as radical as you think it is.  

You believe that there is absolutely no concept of common grace, or that God has any love for the non-elect.   I don't know about this guy in particular, but I know the owner of Pristine Grace (Brandan Kraft) takes this hyper-calvinistic theology to its logical conclusion and also denies that sinful man has any duty to believe, as well as virtually any form of evangelistic preaching (Oh, they cop out by saying the gospel should be "proclaimed", but they don't believe in preaching the way the apostles preached, namely, exhorting every person to accept Christ's  death for their salvation, without concern for who is or is not elect.)  

Right now, I'm only getting one side of this, namely, yours.  The Arminians clearly don't know their Bibles, let alone the Catholics and EOs that barely even try to exegete the text.  So, this is something I'm going to have to look into more.  Namely, I want to look at more of why the more moderate Calvinists disagree with you, what scriptures they use, etc.

Ultimately, I want to bow to what the Bible says.



> The god you worship is an idol.  It's not the God of the Bible who mercies who He will, and hardens who He will.


Do you believe I worship an idol?  Do you believe Spurgeon worshipped an idol because he admitted he didn't know how God's sovereignty mixes with human responsibility?

Mind you, I completely agree with you that the Catholics and EOs worship a God of their own imagination, but I think that goes beyond just this issue.  



> Tough question isn't it?  If you admit that God knew there would be evil (as you would have to do if you believe that God knows everything), then He created the world knowing that there would be evil.  He could have created any world He wanted to, yet He chose to create this one.


That is a tough question, and its self-evidently one I can't answer.  I've considered this as well, if God created me, surely he was sovereign over my personality, what struggles I would have, etc.  Yet another thing I honestly don't think humans can ever understand, at least in this life if ever.




> If you deny that God knows everything, then you may as well not even pretend to worship the God of the Bible.


You should see some of the open theist hacks  at TOL.  Incidentally, most of them are theonomic reconstructionists as well, although we do have one RP supporter who is an Open Theist.



> TER, you have to repent man.  You have to be converted from your idol worship.  I pray the sovereign God who makes the pots will put a heart of flesh in you!


The thing is, with your radical theology, not only is God choosing not to save him, but he actively hates him.  So, if he's not of the elect, aren't you actually opposing God's will by praying this prayer?'

See where hyper-calvinism leads?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes.  Wonderful example of God's sovereignty in salvation.


That verse is actually evidence for my view of predestination.  God doesn't give people hearts of stone, they already have them in Adam.  God sovereignly, monergistically, removes the heart of stone from some, and leaves others in their depraived, stony-hearted state.

I'm still amazed that you think I'm making the same argument as the Arminians....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That verse is actually evidence for my view of predestination.  God doesn't give people hearts of stone, they already have them in Adam.  God sovereignly, monergistically, removes the heart of stone from some, and leaves others in their depraived, stony-hearted state.
> 
> I'm still amazed that you think I'm making the same argument as the Arminians....


Who created the pot with the heart of stone?  Who hardens the heart?  It's obvious man.




> The ‘removal of restraint’ interpretation would actually have us believe the opposite of what scripture explicitly teaches regarding God’s actions in the Exodus event. The Lord multiplied plagues and misery upon Egypt and Pharoah. The external circumstances sent were those that have caused the humiliation of many otherwise proud men into the dust, fearing even greater retribution and sorrow. But in conjunction with the increasing judgments that God sent upon Pharoah, the Lord correspondingly hardened Pharoah’s heart more rigidly against even a nominal repentance that would avoid temporal suffering. The hardening was separate from the sending of terrible calamity. The more suffering that Pharoah endured, the more determined he became to rebel against God in his thoughts and actions.
> 
> It is precisely the Lord’s constant determination of the condition of each and every heart that is the basis of the foreordaining of evil. If evil is unleashed merely by a removal of restraint, the exact course of that evil is somewhat unpredictable. So the doctrine that God merely permits or allows evil by removing his restraining presence must logically view history as a synthesis of God’s predetermination and mere foreknowledge of what will happen (in the case of evil bearing fruit), as does the Arminian. Such a synthesis completely fails to reconcile the paradox that the lack of pre-determination of the precise course of evil, which would be accomplished by controlling the exact sentiments of the hearts of creatures at all times, makes the pre-determination of a desired part of history (the triumph of Grace and salvation) in jeopardy. There can be no reconciliation between a teaching of absolute foreordination and one of partial ‘abstract’ foreknowledge, ever.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who created the pot with the heart of stone? Who hardens the heart?* It's obvious man*.


You're starting to sound hippy 

Seriously though, God creates everyone with a heart of stone, as a consequence of Adam's sin.  I'm not exactly sure how that works, or why its just for people to be punished for Adam's sin, but I trust God when he says that he's just.

----------


## TER

Still crazy at work, but remembered the explanation by St. Maximos:

God, it is said, is the Sun of Righteousness (cf. Mal. 4:2), and the rays of His supernal goodness shine down on all men alike. The soul is wax if it cleaves to God, but clay if it cleaves to matter. Which it does depends on its own will and purpose. Clay hardens in the sun, while wax grows soft. Similarly, every soul that, despite God’s admonitions, deliberately cleaves to the material world, hardens like clay and drives itself to destruction, just as Pharaoh did (cf. Exod. 7: 13). But every soul that cleaves to God is softened like wax and, receiving the impress and stamp of divine realities, it becomes ‘in spirit the dwelling-place of God’ (Eph. 2: 22).

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, whether right or wrong, I still want to know how what I'm arguing is anything like Arminianism.

Arminians believe

That man is not totally depraived (Some Arminians would inconsistently affirm depravity instead)

That man's election is conditional on belief

That Christ died for every person that ever existed

That man has the power to resist God's grace

That  man can lose his salvation through free-will choice (Some Arminians inconsistently reject this)

By contrast, I believe:

That man is totally depraived and cannot come to God of his own.

That God unconditionally elects, and that belief is conditional on election, not the other way around

That Christ died only for his sheep, who he chose before the Foundation of the World.

That those who Christ elected and died for cannot resist his grace once Christ's blood is imputed.

That those who are elect can never fall away, because God will not allow anyone to snatch them from his hand.

My argument may disagree with you on some points, such as the logical order of the decrees and active vs passive hardening, but to call my argument the same as Arminianism is still absurd.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're starting to sound hippy 
> 
> Seriously though, God creates everyone with a heart of stone, as a consequence of Adam's sin.  I'm not exactly sure how that works, or why its just for people to be punished for Adam's sin, but I trust God when he says that he's just.


Think about what you're saying. In Romans 9, there is no discussion of Adam.  God created hearts of stone _before_ Adam's sin, not as a consequence of it.  The discussion of the pots and the Potter in Romans 9 does not involve Adam.  It is a discussion of metaphysics, not ethics.

Also, because God is the Potter, and man is the pot, _everything_ God does is just.  The pot can't turn to the Potter and say "Why did you make me like this?"

----------


## TER

> That man is totally depraived and cannot come to God of his own.


Men were totally depraved BEFORE Christ died on the Cross, for through Christ's death on the Cross, we have been saved from death and eternal separation.  Now, we at least are assured resurrection and eternity, though what kind of eternity depends on how we lived our lives.  Reflecting God's good will and love, or hiding away in shame and fear.  Christ has already explained we will be judged on account of things we have and have not done in this life.

The power of death has been overcome by Christ Who has risen from the dead.  We both agree on that.  Death could not hold Him, and even in hell is God fully present, though as a "consuming fire" whereas the saved will bask in the warmth of the Sun of Righteousness before the same God.

We now die in Christ in our baptism, and raise reborn and alive in the Spirit of God.  We should never forget this.  Do not call men totally depraved lest you include on it the works and presence of the Holy Spirit in them and strengthening them and directing them, for this kind of blaspheme is unforgivable.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Think about what you're saying. In Romans 9, there is no discussion of Adam.  God created hearts of stone _before_ Adam's sin, not as a consequence of it.  The discussion of the pots and the Potter in Romans 9 does not involve Adam.  It is a discussion of metaphysics, not ethics.


Of course he did it before Adam's sin.  The question is what was decreed first.  I think logically the Fall has to come first, although I don't think scripture itself answers this question.



> Also, because God is the Potter, and man is the pot, _everything_ God does is just.  The pot can't turn to the Potter and say "Why did you make me like this?"


Hypothetical: What if God lied to us about the Bible?  Would this be just?  Or would it be a violation of his nature?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Men were totally depraved BEFORE Christ died on the Cross, for through Christ's death on the Cross, we have been saved from death and eternal separation.  Now, we at least are assured resurrection and eternity, though what kind of eternity depends *on how we lived our lives*.  Reflecting God's good will and love, or hiding away in shame and fear.  Christ has already explained we will be judged on account of things we have and have not done in this life.


You don't believe the gospel.  Repent.

Galatians 1:8-9 anathemizes you and your entire church.





> We now die in Christ in our baptism, and raise reborn and alive in the Spirit of God. We should never forget this. Do not call men totally depraved lest you include on it the works and presence of the Holy Spirit in them and strengthening them and directing the , for this kind of blaspheme is unforgivable.


Wait, what?

----------


## TER

> You don't believe the gospel.  Repent.
> 
> Galatians 1:8-9 anathemizes you and your entire church.


It was the Orthodox Church which has brought down through time the Scriptures which you sadly misinterpret. Of course, such a feat could only be done by the Holy Spirit, which apparently to you did not do a good enough job.  The Church you are judging are your forefathers in Christ and I would show a little more respect.  

And you are right I must repent, for I have much to repent of and seek mercy for.  May He forgive me my trespasses AS I FORGIVE THOSE who trespass against me.   You see, God will forgive us how we how we forgave, and to the same measure.  I believe this is also a gospel teaching of Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course he did it before Adam's sin.  The question is what was decreed first.  I think logically the Fall has to come first


_How?_  That's crazy.  How could the fall come prior to creation?  Where does the fall come in to the discussion in Romans 9?  It doesn't.  




> Hypothetical: What if God lied to us about the Bible?  Would this be just?  Or would it be a violation of his nature?


God can't lie, He can't sin, He can't be unjust, etc.  When the Potter makes a pot for destruction, He is being just.  When God hardens a heart, He is being just.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Men were totally depraved BEFORE Christ died on the Cross, for through Christ's death on the Cross, we have been saved from death and eternal separation.  Now, we at least are assured resurrection and eternity, though what kind of eternity depends on how we lived our lives.


Wow, that is completely bizarre.  So you are saying Jesus died to ensure that men are now eternal?  Thats why He died?  And then our works get us into heaven?

That's almost Mormonism.  That's so far away from the gospel, I don't even know where to begin.  Jesus came to ACTUALLY SAVE His people.  He accomplished salvation for His people.  THAT is the good news.  THAT is the gospel as Paul declares it in 1st Corinthians 15.

Works salvation is so clearly and plainly condemned in Scripture, you have to have blinders on to not see it.  It's just bizarre that you would promote this or believe this.  This antithetical to Christianity.

----------


## RJB

> And you are right I must repent, for I have much to repent of and seek mercy for.  May He forgive me my trespasses AS I FORGIVE THOSE who trespass against me.   You see, God will forgive us how we how we forgave, and to the same measure.  I believe this is also a gospel teaching of Christ.


Thanks for reminding us!  I'm thick in the head sometimes and need many reminders, especially for my sarcastic tongue.

----------


## TER

> Wow, that is completely bizarre.  So you are saying Jesus died to ensure that men are now eternal?  Thats why He died?  And then our works get us into heaven?
> 
> That's almost Mormonism.  That's so far away from the gospel, I don't even know where to begin.  Jesus came to ACTUALLY SAVE His people.  He accomplished salvation for His people.  THAT is the good news.  THAT is the gospel as Paul declares it in 1st Corinthians 15.
> 
> Works salvation is so clearly and plainly condemned in Scripture, you have to have blinders on to not see it.  It's just bizarre that you would promote this or believe this.  This antithetical to Christianity.


Well that is your opinion.  Your opinion is a fairly new one in the history of Christianity.  I look for more ancient understanding.

And it is the teachings of the Church from the very beginning that Christ died so that death could be overcome and rendered powerless, meaning all in the graves will rise again.  We are saved from death and sin by His resurrection and sacrifice.  Some into a resurrection of life, and others to a resurrection of judgement (mostly self-judgement before the Light of God).  Now, every man, from the bad thief to the left of Christ's cross to the person dying this very minute will one day stand again resurrected and in person before Christ the Judge.  And He will judge us according to our lives and the works in our lives, and the love that we had and the charity we have done.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well that is your opinion.  Your opinion is a fairly new one in the history of Christianity.  I look for more ancient understanding.
> 
> And it is the teachings of the Church from the very beginning that Christ died so that death could be overcome and rendered powerless, meaning all in the graves will rise again.  We are saved from death and sin by His resurrection and sacrifice.  Some into a resurrection of life, and others to a resurrection of judgement (mostly self-judgement before the Light of God).  Now, every man, from the bad thief to the left of Christ's cross to the people dying this very minute will on day stand again resurrected and in person before Christ as Judge.  And He will judge us one our lives and the works in our lives, and the love that we had and the charity we have done.


And like clockwork you go back to your church.  TER, it doesn't matter if an angel from heaven preached a gospel of works.  It is still evil.  Let alone if it is any man who lived on this earth who preaches it.

You have to repent and believe the gospel TER.  You don't believe the gospel.  You are promoting works salvation!  You don't understand grace.  You don't understand the atonement.  You don't understand the demands of the law.  I'm not saying this to demean you TER, I think you are a very nice person.

----------


## TER

> And like clockwork you go back to your church.  TER, it doesn't matter if an angel from heaven preached a gospel of works.  It is still evil.  Let alone if it is any man who lived on this earth who preaches it.


I am going back to the Church because there are many in the past two thousand years who have preached the same thing within it.  I have not experienced some angel in heaven coming to me and telling me what the truth is.  Please don't compare the two.

While you don't go back to the many witnesses of the Church, you base your understandings on how you and more recent Christians have interpreted the writings of the Scriptures, even as you ignore much of the Scriptures and completely distort fundamental parts.  There is, in my opinion, a much greater chance that it is you who is playing an angel and trying to deceive me then the 2000 year old apostolic Church of Christ which every Sunday since the Day of Pentecost has prayed for the world. 

My question to you is:  why should I take your interpretation over the interpretation of the God-bearing Saints of the Church?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My question to you is:  why should I take your interpretation over the interpretation of the God-bearing Saints of the Church?


Your question presupposes that fallible men are the authority for truth.  You see, you have an un-Christian view of authority.  The Scriptures are the final authority.

----------


## TER

> Your question presupposes that fallible men are the authority for truth.  You see, you have an un-Christian view of authority.  The Scriptures are the final authority.


You are not answering the question.  The questions is why should I take your interpretation over theirs?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are not answering the question.  The questions is why should I take your interpretation over theirs?


Every interpretation must be judged by the Scripture.  The Scriptures are sufficient to give a man everything he needs for faith and life.

----------


## TER

> Every interpretation must be judged by the Scripture.


Men, using the same Scriptures, interpret the Scriptures, and ironically there are tens of thousands of western Christian denominations even as they profess in sola scriptura.




> The Scriptures are sufficient to give a man everything he needs for faith and life.


As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, such a statement is found nowhere in the Scriptures.  Nor anywhere in the first 1500 years of the history of Christianity.  If it was indeed the case that the Scriptures alone were what is needed, would it not at least ONCE been stated in the very Scriptures themselves or expressly professed and believed and written about by the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the subsequent Church Fathers?  But it isn't because this has never been the teaching or the faith.

  Sola scriptura, as I have explained to you in another thread, was the heresy of the Sadducees and was rejected by the Pharisees (who, if you remember the Scriptures correctly, Christ said sat 'in the seat of Moses' and who St. Paul considered himself to be even two decades after being baptized in Christ).  That is, St. Paul like the early Christians, held the Two Fold authority of the Torah and of the Oral Law (both 'word and epistle'), and they believed that the Oral Tradition was completely binding, having derived from Sinai no less than the Written Law.  Sola scriptura is a much later innovation in the the history of Christianity.  I don't understand why this is so hard to understand or why some have to resort to some kind of cognitive dissonance from the historical fact.  If you are shown to be in error, why not correct the error?  

In summary, we know that the belief in sola scriptura is nowhere found in the Bible, that it was against the belief of St. Paul and the early Christians, and that it is nowhere preached to be a Christian doctrine until 1500 years later, but somehow I am supposed to accept it?

----------


## shane77m

2Tim3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tim3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

----------


## TER

> 2Tim3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
> 2Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
> 2Tim3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Yes, excellent verses, which I agree with and which do NOT teach sola scriptura.

----------


## TER

Here is how St. Paul, the self proclaimed Pharisee and believer and teacher of Oral Tradition, would have written it if he believed in sola scriptura:

    2Tim3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which *ALONE*  are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    2Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and *ALONE* is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

----------


## shane77m

> Yes, excellent verses, which I agree with and which do NOT teach sola scriptura.


The way I read them it seems that Paul is saying that Scripture is all that a man of God needs. I don't know what else would need to be added to the things that Paul lists. Maybe Paul should have listed what rituals, exercises, prayers, superstitions, manner of dress, dietary habits, seasons, moon phases, and etc that a Christians needs to follow?

----------


## otherone

> *The way I read them* it *seems* that Paul is saying that Scripture is all that a man of God needs.





> You are not answering the question.  The questions is why should I take *your interpretation* over theirs?

----------


## TER

> The way I read them it seems that Paul is saying that Scripture is all that a man of God needs.


I know that is how you read them, and that is because you need to read them that way in order to justify your beliefs.  But the reality is that is not how those versus were ever understood by the early Church.  I have explained over and over now that St. Paul was a Pharisee and a believer and student of the Oral Law which is completely contradictory to sola scriptura and the heresy of the Sadducees.  Do you still ignore that fact?




> I don't know what else would need to be added to the things that Paul lists. Maybe Paul should have listed what rituals, exercises, prayers, superstitions, manner of dress, dietary habits, seasons, moon phases, and etc that a Christians needs to follow?


Well, if he did, then at least those who believed in sola scriptura might better know what kind of worship is pleasing to God.  After all, he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, he layed hands and ordained Bishops and Priests, and performed the sacrament of Holy Unction with blessed and sanctified oil.  Rituals and traditions which are biblical things that the modern adherent of sola scriptura ignores.

----------


## shane77m

Why should I take the Orthodox or Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture over my own? I see nothing in Scripture saying theirs is only way to go. Then between the two groups, which one should I choose? They both claim to be right when they contradict each other. 

I will take Scripture and faith alone.

----------


## moostraks

> Why should I take the Orthodox or Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture over my own? I see nothing in Scripture saying theirs is only way to go. Then between the two groups, which one should I choose? They both claim to be right when they contradict each other. 
> 
> I will take Scripture and faith alone.


Tis your choice do so and be held accountable for your decision. 

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.[b] 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

just a few verses for those who have ears to hear...

----------


## TER

> Why should I take the Orthodox or Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture over my own? I see nothing in Scripture saying theirs is only way to go. Then between the two groups, which one should I choose? They both claim to be right when they contradict each other. 
> 
> I will take Scripture and faith alone.


You mean, you will take YOUR interpretation of Scripture alone, even when the weight of the evidence speaks out against it.

----------


## shane77m

> You mean, you will take YOUR interpretation of Scripture alone, even when the weight of the evidence speaks out against it.


If you mean evidence by when one group says that their interpretation is correct and has been since the founding of the church which is then contradicted by another organization that says it has had the correct interpretation since the founding of the church, then yes. I will take my interpretation. Especially when what I read contradicts both groups.

If people in either of those groups don't like my interpretation then no skin off my back. If it makes them happy to argue about who is in the true church, then by all means they should argue. I will stay out of both groups and stay in the true universal church. 

I see nothing in Scripture saying that water baptism, the Eucharist, and various prayers and rituals are necessary for salvation. I do read where Paul writes that Scripture is all that a man of God needs to be complete. I also read where Paul says that faith is all that is needed for salvation. 



Back on topic of the OP. 

I do agree. God is the potter. He does what He wants with the clay.

----------


## TER

Whatever, believe what you will.   Debating you is a waste of time since you already believe you know all the answers.

----------


## TER

> If you mean evidence by when one group says that their interpretation is correct and has been since the founding of the church which is then contradicted by another organization that says it has had the correct interpretation since the founding of the church, then yes. I will take my interpretation.


Oh, and by the way, the two groups you are talking about which go back to the founding of the Church were one group for a thousand years and have always had the same interpretation about this particular topic, so your argument in this regard is moot.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow, that is completely bizarre.  So you are saying Jesus died to ensure that men are now eternal?  Thats why He died?  And then our works get us into heaven?
> 
> That's almost Mormonism.  That's so far away from the gospel, I don't even know where to begin.  Jesus came to ACTUALLY SAVE His people.  He accomplished salvation for His people.  THAT is the good news.  THAT is the gospel as Paul declares it in 1st Corinthians 15.
> 
> Works salvation is so clearly and plainly condemned in Scripture, you have to have blinders on to not see it.  It's just bizarre that you would promote this or believe this.  This antithetical to Christianity.


Amen.




> _How?_  That's crazy.  How could the fall come prior to creation?  Where does the fall come in to the discussion in Romans 9?  It doesn't.


I'm talking about the logical order of the decrees.  You're clearly talking about something else.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm




> The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the _logical order_ of God's _eternal_ decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen _after_ Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this.


I'm not saying that the Fall was decreed before Creation was decreed, I'm saying the Fall was decreed before election was decreed (Although this is pretty much a logical debate seeing as both were determined in eternity past.)




> God can't lie, He can't sin, He can't be unjust, etc.  When the Potter makes a pot for destruction, He is being just.  When God hardens a heart, He is being just.



OK, so you're actually arguing that for a pot to be made for destruction isn't unjust, not that God could do anything and that it would be just.  In that case, I agree with you, God cannot sin, and he will not sin.

My question still remains, are you saying that if God did not blind people that they could believe on their own?  I presume you would say no to that one, which would make this debate pointless.



> I am going back to the Church because there are many in the past two thousand years who have preached the same thing within it.  I have not experienced some angel in heaven coming to me and telling me what the truth is.  Please don't compare the two.
> 
> While you don't go back to the many witnesses of the Church, you base your understandings on how you and more recent Christians have interpreted the writings of the Scriptures, even as you ignore much of the Scriptures and completely distort fundamental parts.  There is, in my opinion, a much greater chance that it is you who is playing an angel and trying to deceive me then the 2000 year old apostolic Church of Christ which every Sunday since the Day of Pentecost has prayed for the world. 
> 
> My question to you is:  why should I take your interpretation over the interpretation of the God-bearing Saints of the Church?


Because they self-evidently teach an unbiblical gospel.

----------


## erowe1

> Oh, and by the way, the two groups you are talking about which go back to the founding of the Church


They don't go back to the founding of the Church.

----------


## erowe1

> Here is how St. Paul, the self proclaimed Pharisee and believer and teacher of Oral Tradition, would have written it if he believed in sola scriptura:
> 
>     2Tim3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which *ALONE*  are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
>     2Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and *ALONE* is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Do you really think that people who believe in "sola scriptura" believe the things you're saying Paul would have said? I've never heard anyone say that.

----------


## erowe1

> Tis your choice do so and be held accountable for your decision. 
> 
> Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
> 
> Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.
> 
> Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.[b] 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
> 
> Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
> ...


Each and every one of those verses supports what Shane said.

In order to follow those teachings we need to privilege the teachings of the apostles over everyone else.

Notice Acts 20:30 in particular. Some people, even from among those who can claim apostolic succession by the laying on of hands, will depart from the truth. And what is the standard by which they are to be measured and rejected when they do? It is the truth, as Paul himself taught it.

----------


## TER

Hey erowe, and FF, this post is for both of you too.  It's getting tiring to debate either of you as well.  I am beginning to better understand Christ's admonition to shake the dust off one's feet.  I am close to the point of ignoring a few of you here.  If that is your goal, it is working.  You can then preach about your angry God who you believe is the cause of evil and continue to judge the Church Fathers and Saints while expounding on your false innovative interpretations.  I am about done trying to help any of you open your eyes.




> Men, using the same Scriptures, interpret the Scriptures, and ironically there are tens of thousands of western Christian denominations even as they profess in sola scriptura.
> 
> As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, scripture alone is found nowhere in the Scriptures. Nor anywhere in the first 1500 years of the history of Christianity. If it was indeed the case that the Scriptures alone were what is needed, would it not at least ONCE been stated in the very Scriptures themselves or expressly professed and believed and written about by the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the subsequent Church Fathers? But it isn't because this has never been the teaching or the faith.
> 
> Sola scriptura, as I have explained to you in another thread, was the heresy of the Sadducees and was rejected by the Pharisees (who, if you remember the Scriptures correctly, Christ said sat 'in the seat of Moses' and who St. Paul considered himself to be even two decades after being baptized in Christ). That is, St. Paul like the early Christians, held the Two Fold authority of the Torah and of the Oral Law (both 'word and epistle'), and they believed that the Oral Tradition was completely binding, having derived from Sinai no less than the Written Law. Sola scriptura is a much later innovation in the the history of Christianity. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand or why some have to resort to some kind of cognitive dissonance from the historical fact. If you are shown to be in error, why not correct the error? 
> 
> In summary, we know that the belief in sola scriptura is nowhere found in the Bible, that it was against the belief of St. Paul and the early Christians, and that it is nowhere preached to be a Christian doctrine until 1500 years later, but somehow I am supposed to accept it?

----------


## erowe1

> they believed that the Oral Tradition was completely binding, having derived from Sinai no less than the Written Law.


This is ironic that you would assert this, since none of the Church fathers you revere believed this.

Furthermore, despite what you claim, Jesus, Paul, and all the apostles clearly didn't believe it either.

----------


## TER

> This is ironic that you would assert this, since none of the Church fathers you revere believed this.
> 
> Furthermore, despite what you claim, Jesus, Paul, and all the apostles clearly didn't believe it either.


Sadly for you, you are wrong.

Goodbye and good luck erowe.  I am finished debating you.

----------


## erowe1

Here's what Jesus said about how the laws that were based on oral traditions stacked up next to the ones written in Scripture:




> Mark 7:1*¶ The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" 6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' 8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." 9*¶ He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; 11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." 14*¶ After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." 17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

----------


## eduardo89

> This is ironic that you would assert this, since none of the Church fathers you revere believed this.
> 
> Furthermore, despite what you claim, Jesus, Paul, and all the apostles clearly didn't believe it either.


The Early Church regarded oral tradition (as taught by the Church) to be equal in authority with written tradition (Scripture) because they both came from the same God through the same Church. As Paul tells us: “hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

*Papias*



> Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).


*Irenaeus*



> For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).





> True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).


*Tertullian*



> For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription Against Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).


*Origen*



> Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).


*Eusebius*



> While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]).


*Athanasius*



> Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, "It seemed good as follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, "It seemed good" but, "Thus believes the Catholic Church"; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia [A.D. 359]).


*Basil*



> Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters… (On the Holy Spirit 27 [A.D. 375]).


*Jerome*



> Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).


*John Chrysostom*



> "So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]).


*Vincent of Lerins*



> I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief n two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church (Commonitory 2 [A.D. 434])


*Theodoret*



> I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled… So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the Prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance [styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees] (Letters no. 89 [circa A.D. 443]).

----------


## eduardo89

> This is ironic that you would assert this, since none of the Church fathers you revere believed this.
> 
> Furthermore, despite what you claim, Jesus, Paul, and all the apostles clearly didn't believe it either.


The Early Church regarded oral tradition (as taught by the Church) to be equal in authority with written tradition (Scripture) because they both came from the same God through the same Church. As Paul tells us: hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

*Papias*



> Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lords disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).


*Irenaeus*



> For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).





> True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).


*Tertullian*



> For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription Against Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).


*Origen*



> Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).


*Eusebius*



> While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]).


*Athanasius*



> Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, "It seemed good as follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, "It seemed good" but, "Thus believes the Catholic Church"; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia [A.D. 359]).


*Basil*



> Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters (On the Holy Spirit 27 [A.D. 375]).


*Jerome*



> Dont you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).


*John Chrysostom*



> "So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]).


*Vincent of Lerins*



> I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief n two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church (Commonitory 2 [A.D. 434])


*Theodoret*



> I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the Prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance [styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees] (Letters no. 89 [circa A.D. 443]).

----------


## erowe1

> The Early Church regarded oral tradition (as taught by the Church)


That's not what he was talking about. He was talking about the Jewish "oral Torah" that ostensibly had been passed down by oral tradition since Sinai.

----------


## moostraks

> Each and every one of those verses supports what Shane said.
> 
> In order to follow those teachings we need to privilege the teachings of the apostles over everyone else.
> 
> Notice Acts 20:30 in particular. Some people, even from among those who can claim apostolic succession by the laying on of hands, will depart from the truth. And what is the standard by which they are to be measured and rejected when they do? It is the truth, as Paul himself taught it.


Ya know I can see where someone can try and take it to the point you wish to but I think that would then discredit any call to be in community and none of us here seem to be living in total isolation. So we are influenced in our beliefs by what we are exposing ourselves to here and elsewhere. So one may claim to be Scripture alone and faith but that has been influenced by experiences and the opinions of others. 

It also seems to me this is skipping over Romans 12:3-8 and the call to not think so highly of ourselves and realize the talents of those who have the same Love in them. People make an idol of their own interpretations and value their own wisdom at the expense of potentially learning from someone who might offer something of value to them that they had not considered or given them exposure to something that might help deepen their Faith. 

What will we judge leaders by?

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Galatians 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Hebrews says to look at the leaders way of life and its outcome and imitate their faith. Galatians helps flesh out who walks by the Spirit so we know them by their fruits so we can choose accurately who is to be imitated. Romans tells us to not think so highly of our own selves and use sober judgement as each has their own talent, and I would think that leaning solely on one's own knowledge probably is defying the spirit of what is being put forth to believers as the ideal for Faith to be revealed. It's my opinion and experience and if it differs from your experience so be it. If its of value for someone else then great!

----------


## TER

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. *Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do*, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do"

...

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. *These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hey erowe, and FF, this post is for both of you too.  It's getting tiring to debate either of you as well.  I am beginning to better understand Christ's admonition to shake the dust off one's feet.  I am close to the point of ignoring a few of you here.  If that is your goal, it is working.  You can then preach about your angry God who you believe is the cause of evil and continue to judge the Church Fathers and Saints while expounding on your false innovative interpretations.  I am about done trying to help any of you open your eyes.


Its not relevant because whether sola scriptura is true or not (I believe it is for the reason shane already said) your teaching CONTRADICTS the scriptures.

If you don't see this, I really don't know what to say to you.  I have no bitterness toward you, but I might have to shake the dust off my feet as well.

----------


## erowe1

> Ya know I can see where someone can try and take it to the point you wish to but I think that would then discredit any call to be in community and none of us here seem to be living in total isolation. So we are influenced in our beliefs by what we are exposing ourselves to here and elsewhere. So one may claim to be Scripture alone and faith but that has been influenced by experiences and the opinions of others. 
> 
> It also seems to me this is skipping over Romans 12:3-8 and the call to not think so highly of ourselves and realize the talents of those who have the same Love in them. People make an idol of their own interpretations and value their own wisdom at the expense of potentially learning from someone who might offer something of value to them that they had not considered or given them exposure to something that might help deepen their Faith. 
> 
> What will we judge leaders by?
> 
> Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
> 
> Galatians 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> ...


I am all for everything you just said.

Where problems come in is when somebody says that their own group is the one that has the leaders that actually count, such that it is not actually the faith of the apostles that matters any more, but the faith of these later leaders that end up taking their place.

Hebrews, by the way, specifically says the leaders it's talking about are the ones who taught the Word of God. Once again, there is the thing that makes their authority count. It is not who they are. It is the content of what they teach.

----------


## erowe1

> Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. *Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do*, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do"
> 
> ...
> 
> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. *These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.*


Neither of those verses addresses the Pharisees' oral traditions and compares them with or equates them to written Scripture. Mark 7 (and Matthew 15) addresses that exact question pointedly and explicitly, and there Jesus clearly teaches that those oral traditions are from men and not God, and are not to be equated with the Scripture.

And, by the way, to reiterate the irony of you saying this which I mentioned earlier, if there really is something that all the extant writings of the Church Fathers agree on, from East and West over centuries and throughout all other disagreements, it's that they all rejected the traditions of the Jews. I can easily demonstrate this if you really dispute it. I'm not sure how you would reconcile this fact with the line of argument you're trying to make about the Pharisees.

----------


## eduardo89

> Its not relevant because whether sola scriptura is true or not (I believe it is for the reason shane already said) your teaching CONTRADICTS the scriptures.


Nothing TER has said contradicts the Bible, however a lot of what you say does. And it does matter whether Sola Scriptura is true or not, if it is true then you should be able to prove it using Scripture, which you cannot because the Bible does not teach it anywhere, quite contrary to its teaching that Oral Tradition is a source of Divine Revelation on par with Written Tradition.

----------


## moostraks

> I am all for everything you just said.
> 
> Where problems come in is when somebody says that their own group is the one that has the leaders that actually count, such that it is not actually the faith of the apostles that matters any more, but the faith of these later leaders that end up taking their place.


 understood and agree

----------


## erowe1

> quite contrary to its teaching that Oral Tradition is a source of Divine Revelation on par with Written Tradition.


Where is this?

----------


## eduardo89

> Where is this?


St. Paul tells us In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to "Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Notice how Paul puts oral tradition on the same level as written tradition. Why would he do that? He gives us the answer in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God..." So the oral traditions and the written were both the word of God. No wonder Paul was pleased when the Corinthians accepted the traditions that he passed on to them. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). It is sometimes claimed that the oral tradition that Paul is speaking of is what he later put into Scripture. But the Bible nowhere says this.

The Apostles taught in the same manner and, according to the Bible, apostolic teaching was the standard in the early Church: "And they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers" (Acts 2:42). Note that this took place before the first page of the New Testament was written.

It is only when we embrace Scripture *and* Sacred Tradition that we have the complete Word of God. And as Jesus once said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

----------


## moostraks

> I am all for everything you just said.
> 
> Where problems come in is when somebody says that their own group is the one that has the leaders that actually count, such that it is not actually the faith of the apostles that matters any more, but the faith of these later leaders that end up taking their place.
> 
> Hebrews, by the way, specifically says the leaders it's talking about are the ones who taught the Word of God. Once again, there is the thing that makes their authority count. It is not who they are. It is the content of what they teach.


addressing your point on Hebrews that you added...It still means one is submitting to someone else. It seems that if one was to lean on ones own knowledge then there is no need to have so much written on community issues and authority.

----------


## erowe1

> addressing your point on Hebrews that you added...It still means one is submitting to someone else. It seems that if one was to lean on ones own knowledge then there is no need to have so much written on community issues and authority.


I agree.

I think all this talk about people leaning on their own knowledge is a straw man that the Catholic/Orthodox side here is trying to use against people who point to the Bible and show them, "Here's what it says. Read it yourself if you don't believe me."

Treating the Bible as authoritative doesn't undermine Church leadership. It just undermines those who would try to use their leadership to teach things that contradict the apostolic faith.

----------


## erowe1

> St. Paul tells us In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to "Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
> 
> Notice how Paul puts oral tradition on the same level as written tradition. Why would he do that? He gives us the answer in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God..." So the oral traditions and the written were both the word of God. No wonder Paul was pleased when the Corinthians accepted the traditions that he passed on to them. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). It is sometimes claimed that the oral tradition that Paul is speaking of is what he later put into Scripture. But the Bible nowhere says this.
> 
> The Apostles taught in the same manner and, according to the Bible, apostolic teaching was the standard in the early Church: "And they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers" (Acts 2:42). Note that this took place before the first page of the New Testament was written.
> 
> It is only when we embrace Scripture *and* Sacred Tradition that we have the complete Word of God. And as Jesus once said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).



You are trucking a lot of foreign concepts into that verse when you say that he's talking about "oral tradition" in a sense that resembles what this discussion is about.

He clearly specifies that he's talking about the traditions that he says "were taught *by us*." There is nothing about that verse that allows later generations to teach novel ideas and claim to have received them by oral tradition from the apostles.

What I insist on is exactly what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11:2, and exactly what Acts 2:42 mentions. It is that we adhere to the teachings of the apostles. Not later Church fathers, but the apostles.

----------


## moostraks

> I agree.
> 
> I think all this talk about people leaning on their own knowledge is a straw man that the Catholic/Orthodox side here is trying to use against people who point to the Bible and show them, "Here's what it says. Read it yourself if you don't believe me."
> 
> Treating the Bible as authoritative doesn't undermine Church leadership. It just undermines those who would try to use their leadership to teach things that contradict the apostolic faith.


Well I think the argument is coming from the fact that they are accused of false beliefs for the traditions. I was taught the traditions were a dangerous perversion of the faith and Catholics were bad (I had no clue who the Eastern Orthodox were at that point). So the churches I went to maintained control through a good deal of fear mongering. Eventually due to some real bad experiences I walked away from the faith.

After a few years I came back with an open mind. I see things with more tolerance in regards to the issue of tradition. It fleshes the Faith out for me in a manner that I never could conceive of in my previous churches. I think it can be a stumbling block for some. So while I wish others could be more receptive to what is offered by them, I can relate to why some are not. I am not fully there yet as far as being a member of one of these churches because I still have a few issues that are within me due to my previous exposure. I say one should take what they can and He will deal with us where we need to be as long as we heed the still, small voice.

----------


## RJB

There seems to be two sides:  One side says it's by "Bible Alone," which they ironically admit isn't in the bible.  The other side says they follow the bible along with the traditions and have cited several biblical sources.

 By citing the instructions to follow traditions as instructed by the bible, (atleast from my point of view) I would say the apostlics are doing a better job of following the bible than the Sola Scriptura people.

----------


## erowe1

> There seems to be two sides:  One side says it's by "Bible Alone," which they ironically admit isn't in the bible.  The other side says they follow the bible along with the traditions and have cited several biblical sources.
> 
>  By citing the instructions to follow traditions as instructed by the bible, (atleast from my point of view) I would say the apostlics are doing a better job of following the bible than the Sola Scriptura people.


If you actually can point to anything that we have any substantive reason to believe the apostles taught, and your source is something other than the Bible, I would be very interested in it. If you could convince me that they taught it, I would believe it.

The problem is, there are churches that teach things claiming they go back to traditions that originally came from the apostles, and we have no reason to believe they do except that these special people want us to treat them as special and say that whenever they claim something goes back to the apostles, then it must. We end up with ideas that clearly didn't arise until centuries after the apostles, being held up as things people are obligated to believe as if they were apostolic.

Nothing the apostles taught supports the conclusion that church leaders centuries later would have the authority to do that.

And a consequence is that you end up with people who don't know what the Gospel itself is, but who think that a true Christian is someone who believes in the assumption of Mary or some such thing.

----------


## RJB

> If you actually can point to anything that we have any substantive reason to believe the apostles taught, and your source is something other than the Bible, I would be very interested in it. If you could convince me that they taught it, I would believe it.


I came to this through years of prayer, reading history and the bible and much more prayer.  If you don't believe it, I really am fine that.  I'm just in this thread to check out the party that Sola decided to throw.  He says the wildest things.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nothing TER has said contradicts the Bible, however a lot of what you say does. And it does matter whether Sola Scriptura is true or not, if it is true then you should be able to prove it using Scripture, which you cannot because the Bible does not teach it anywhere, quite contrary to its teaching that Oral Tradition is a source of Divine Revelation on par with Written Tradition.


The Bible teaches no such thing. 1 Timothy 3:16-17 says that God-breathed the scriptures and that they are sufficient.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Bible teaches no such thing. 1 Timothy 3:16-17 says that God-breathed the scriptures and that they are sufficient.


Thank you for bringing up 1 Timothy. 

Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1) *The Greek word ophelimos ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient."* An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as "all," actually means "every," and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2)  In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every "Scripture" is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

3) *The "Scripture" that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament*, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term "scripture." If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or "inspired" (literally, "God-breathed"), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say "Scripture"; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as "inspired." St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be "Scripture." It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: "How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?" obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

4) The Greek word artios, here translated "perfect," may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. "After all," one may ask, "if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?"

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made "perfect." The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the "man of God" – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God "perfect." The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, "The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation." Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is neither the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor "perfect," it is the only thing which makes him so.

Also, taking this word "perfect" as meaning "the only necessary item" results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes on perfect: "And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing." Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for "perfect," but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only think a "man of God" needs in order to be perfect.

5) The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated "furnished" (other Bible versions read something like "fully equipped" or "thoroughly furnished") is referred to by Protestants as "proof" of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the "man of God." However, even though the man of God may be "furnished" or "thoroughly equipped," this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be "furnished" with them.

Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to perform an operation (i.e., he is "thoroughly equipped" or "furnished" for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.

So it is with the "man of God" and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly used, the exact opposite results can occur. In once case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle incorrectly or wrongly divide it – much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't honestly have all that much of a problem with what you actually said here, eduardo.  Nonetheless, the Catholic Church (And the EO Church) outright contradict the Bible.  So you can't really say both things are equal, when they contradict each other.

For curiosity, my dad tells me that he's seen a priest's training manual or something like that before, and that they are apparently told to take church tradition OVER scripture.  Is it possible for a layperson to verify or refute this assertion?

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't honestly have all that much of a problem with what you actually said here, eduardo.  Nonetheless, the Catholic Church (And the EO Church) outright contradict the Bible.  So you can't really say both things are equal, when they contradict each other.


Where does the Church ever contradict Scripture? It does not and more importantly, cannot. 




> For curiosity, my dad tells me that he's seen a priest's training manual or something like that before, and that they are apparently told to take church tradition OVER scripture.  Is it possible for a layperson to verify or refute this assertion?


That is an outright lie. 




> 9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
> 
> 10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.
> 
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...verbum_en.html

----------


## eduardo89

Double post

----------


## Theocrat

Some of you are confusing "*solo* Scriptura" with "*sola* Scriptura." There is a difference. "Solo Scriptura" is the idea that it's me and my Bible and nothing else (no church councils, confessions, creeds, catechisms, etc.).

"Sola Scriptura," on the other hand, is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the final authority, above other authorities, like church councils, creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc. Because church councils can err and have erred in history, and because creeds, confessions, and catechisms are not inspired (or "God-breathed") writings, the Bible alone holds the infallible, inerrant, and inspired authority in all matters of faith and practice.

When there are multiple interpretations of the Scriptures, then those interpretations, themselves, must be checked by the Scriptures. That is the essence of what "sola Scriptura" is about in discovering truth about God.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Some of you are confusing "*solo* Scriptura" with "*sola* Scriptura." There is a difference. "Solo Scriptura" is the idea that it's me and my Bible and nothing else (no church councils, confessions, creeds, catechisms, etc.).
> 
> "Sola Scriptura," on the other hand, is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the final authority, above other authorities, like church councils, creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc. Because church councils can err and have erred in history, and because creeds, confessions, and catechisms are not inspired (or "God-breathed") writings, the Bible alone holds the infallible, inerrant, and inspired authority in all matters of faith and practice.
> 
> When there are multiple interpretations of the Scriptures, then those interpretations, themselves, must be checked by the Scriptures. That is the essence of what "sola Scriptura" is about in discovering truth about God.


Thank you for this clarification, Theo.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where does the Church ever contradict Scripture? It does not and more importantly, cannot.


Hahaha...  This is an easy question

The Scripture says.




> *8* For *by grace* you have been saved* through faith*. And this isnot your own doing; it is the gift of God, *9* *not a result of works*, so that no one may boast.


On the other hand, the Council of Trent says:




> "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."[42]


Paul calls your entire whore church, and those who hold to its teachings anathema, and damned to eternal punishment.

I used to think Sola was too mean to you guys but I don't really think that anymore.  You are the Judaizers, and Paul calls you anathema.  This isn't complicated.

----------


## eduardo89

> Hahaha...  This is an easy question
> 
> The Scripture says.
> 
> On the other hand, the Council of Trent says:


The Catholic Church completely agrees with that verse. We are not saved by works, obviously. No real Christian believes that. But I ask you, where does it say faith *alone*? It does not.

You should quote the next verse as well:




> For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.  F*or we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works,* which God prepared in advance for us to do.


The "works" in verse 8 are those that obligate God to pay you, they are not the same as the "good works" in verse 10 that a Christian must take care to perform. 

Take a look at Ephesians 4:17 and 5:18. Those verses shows clearly the way a Christian lives their life has an impact on their salvation.

Works are an integral part of our faith and cannot be separated from it. Faith without works is no faith at all. “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Some of you are confusing "*solo* Scriptura" with "*sola* Scriptura." There is a difference. "Solo Scriptura" is the idea that it's me and my Bible and nothing else (no church councils, confessions, creeds, catechisms, etc.).
> 
> "Sola Scriptura," on the other hand, is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the final authority, above other authorities, like church councils, creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc. Because church councils can err and have erred in history, and because creeds, confessions, and catechisms are not inspired (or "God-breathed") writings, the Bible alone holds the infallible, inerrant, and inspired authority in all matters of faith and practice.
> 
> When there are multiple interpretations of the Scriptures, then those interpretations, themselves, must be checked by the Scriptures. That is the essence of what "sola Scriptura" is about in discovering truth about God.


Yes, exactly.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Catholic Church completely agrees with that verse. We are not saved by works, obviously. No real Christian believes that. But I ask you, where does it say faith *alone*? It does not.
> 
> You should quote the next verse as well:
> 
> 
> 
> The "works" in verse 8 are those that obligate God to pay you, they are not the same as the "good works" in verse 10 that a Christian must take care to perform. 
> 
> Take a look at Ephesians 4:17 and 5:18. Those verses shows clearly the way a Christian lives their life has an impact on their salvation.
> ...


God did indeed "Prepare us for good works" but that doesn't mean that good works save.

The Council of Trent says that man's justification is "increased" by good works.  That's evil, damnable heresy and any person who believes in it will burn in Hell forever and ever unless they repent.

Do you believe Paul, or the Council of Trent?  You need to make up your mind.

----------


## RJB

> Do you believe Paul, or the Council of Trent?  You need to make up your mind.


I believe both.  They do not contradict each other.

If I'm wrong, I have faith in God that he'll have mercy on me, his poor sometimes not so bright servant, who has faith in him and does his best (with numerous failures of course) to follow Jesus' command to love one another as he has loved me.   He told me to in his scriptures. Out of love for him I try to obey.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe both.  They do not contradict each other.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I have faith in God that he'll have mercy on me, his poor sometimes not so bright servant, who has faith in him and does his best (with numerous failures of course) to follow Jesus' command to love one another as he has loved me.   He told me to in his scriptures. Out of love for him I try to obey.


If God wants to have mercy on you, he will CAUSE you to believe the gospel.  He will not save you in the blasphemous false gospel that you believe in, he would save you FROM IT!

Repent and believe the Truth.

----------


## RJB

> If God wants to have mercy on you, he will CAUSE you to believe the gospel.  He will not save you in the blasphemous false gospel that you believe in, he would save you FROM IT!


The blasphemous false gospel of loving our neighbor as ourselves?  I worry about you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The blasphemous false gospel of loving our neighbor as ourselvelves *for salvation*?  I worry about you.


I was talking about the blasphemous Council of Trent, which you support, but if you believe that loving your neighbor earns you justification before God, you are dead in your sins.

----------


## RJB

> I was talking about the blasphemous Council of Trent, which you support, but if you believe that loving your neighbor earns you justification before God, you are dead in your sins.


Sigh.  I've already mentioned I have faith in Jesus saving me so much so that I strive to obey his commandments.

----------


## RJB

Oh you added, salvation to my post.  Obeying Jesus' command is part of obedient *faith*.  Without love I am nothing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sigh.  I've already mentioned I have faith in Jesus saving me so much so that I strive to obey his commandments.


If you believe you were saved through your faith, rather than obedience, you should reject the blasphemous Council of Trent, and you should agree with Paul when he says that all who hold to it are unregenerate and dead in their sins.

but you said you believe the Council of Trent, which tells me YOU are still dead in your sins!

----------


## RJB

> If you believe you were saved through your faith, rather than obedience, you should reject the blasphemous Council of Trent, and you should agree with Paul when he says that all who hold to it are unregenerate and dead in their sins.
> 
> but you said you believe the Council of Trent, which tells me YOU are still dead in your sins!


 Because I believe that faith in God means that I must follow the Gospel of Jesus and do my best to love God and my neighbor.  Whatever...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because I believe that faith in God means that I must follow the Gospel of Jesus and do my best to love God and my neighbor.  Whatever...


No, not "Whatever."  This is essential doctrine here.  We're talking about a life and death issue here.  See Galatians 1:8-9.

How are you saved?  By God's grace, through faith, or through your own works?  Do you believe the Bible or the Council of Trent?  This isn't something you can have both ways, nor is it a non-essential issue.

----------


## RJB

> No, not "Whatever."  This is essential doctrine here.  We're talking about a life and death issue here.  See Galatians 1:8-9.
> 
> How are you saved?  By God's grace, through faith, or through your own works?  Do you believe the Bible or the Council of Trent?  This isn't something you can have both ways, nor is it a non-essential issue.


I appreciate your concern.  Trust me I do, but reading God's word I can't contradict salvation of grace through faith and Philipians 2:12 "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."  To go with your Faith Alone, I'd have to believe the bible contradicts itself.

It's not an either/or.  It's both

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I appreciate your concern.  Trust me I do, but reading God's word I can't contradict salvation of grace through faith and Philipians 2:12 "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."  To go with your Faith Alone, I'd have to believe the bible contradicts itself.


Philippians 2:12 does not teach Salvation by works.

----------


## eduardo89

> God did indeed "Prepare us for good works" but that doesn't mean that good works save.


Works don't save. We are saved solely by the Grace of the Cross through faith manifested in works of love and charity.




> The Council of Trent says that man's justification is "increased" by good works.  That's evil, damnable heresy and any person who believes in it will burn in Hell forever and ever unless they repent.


Justification is not a one time event.


On justification:
the *final cause* indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting;while the *efficient cause* is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance;but the *meritorious cause* is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;the *instrumental cause* is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;lastly, the alone *formal cause* is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.


http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/...ation-and.html




> Do you believe Paul, or the Council of Trent?  You need to make up your mind.


It's not either/or. I believe both, St. Paul and the Council of Trent, as well as every other Ecumenical Council of the Church.




> Philippians 2:12 does not teach Salvation by works.


Neither does the Church.




> How are you saved?  By God's grace, through faith, or through your own works?


We've been over this a million times, and I already responded to it in this response. We are saved by grace through faith manifested in works of love and charity inspired by the Holy Spirit. 




> Do you believe the Bible or the Council of Trent?  This isn't something you can have both ways, nor is it a non-essential issue.


Again, it is not an either/or question. Catholics accept everything in the Bible and we accept our Ecumenical Councils as well. There is no contradiction between them, ever. If the Church were to teach something that isn't true then it would cease to the Church. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, it cannot teach anything is false or contradicting of Scripture.

----------


## RJB

> Philippians 2:12 does not teach Salvation by works.


I didn't say it does.  I believe we must strive to be like Jesus the best we mortally can.  Faith is what saves us of course, but we were given bodies to work.  Otherwise we'd be souls only.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't say it does.  I believe we must strive to be like Jesus the best we mortally can.  Faith is what saves us of course, but we were given bodies to work.  Otherwise we'd be souls only.


Oh, I see.  You think I'm teaching antinomianism.  I'm not.  Works are the evidence of salvation.  So, there's really no contradiction, just one you've invented in your mind.

Now repent and come out of Babylon...

----------


## RJB

> Oh, I see.  You think I'm teaching antinomianism.  I'm not.  Works are the evidence of salvation.  So, there's really no contradiction, just one you've invented in your mind.
> 
> Now repent and come out of Babylon...


But we are instructed to do works of Charity by Jesus and in the epistles, not hinted to do them.  I feel I'd be disobedient to Jesus if I didn't strive to do my best.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't say it does. I believe we must strive to be like Jesus the best we mortally can. Faith is what saves us of course, but we were given bodies to work. Otherwise we'd be souls only.


Phillipians 2:12-13 says it is GOD who is working and acting in a Christian man:




> *Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.*


Where do you get that you must do works in order to be saved from that verse?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But we are instructed to do works of Charity by Jesus and in the epistles, not hinted to do them.  I feel I'd be disobedient to Jesus if I didn't strive to do my best.


I'm not telling you not to  try, I'm telling you your SALVATION is not conditioned on your works.  Nobody is saying that works are not important.

But your church teaches that works themselves justify, rather than being the fruits of justification.  That's damnable heresy, and everyone who believes in it is lost.

----------


## eduardo89

> Phillipians 2:12-13 says it is GOD who is working and acting in a Christian man:


Yes, and that is why we say that it is the Holy Spirit acting within us which enables our good works. We are saved by grace, through faith and *works inspired by the Holy Spirit's love.*

The Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so. St. Thomas Aquinas said that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.




> If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.


The Church teaches God's grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God. The manifestation of our faith through our works is done by the grace of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, and that is why we say that it is the Holy Spirit acting within us which enables our good works. We are saved by grace, through faith and *works inspired by the Holy Spirit's love.*



Yes, that is because Rome confuses justification with sanctification.  In the Bible, justification is a one-time objective event that happens on the cross.  It is a historical event, something that happened in the past.  According to Rome, justification is a process that happens in the heart.  

This was what the Reformation was fought over.  What is the ground of assurance?  Rome had a seemingly spiritual description of how a man was made right with God, but in practice, Rome's doctrine taught man to look inward to his own personal righteousness for his assurance.  Man's works and the Holy Spirit's works became indistinguishable.  This destroys assurance.  And to this very day, Rome teaches that a man can go to Mass a million times in his life and NEVER be perfected.

The Bible teaches that a believer can be assured of His salvation because of God imputing Christ's righteousness to him.  This atonement PERFECTS man.  Paul says we can have PEACE with God.  Do you know how profound that is?  This is something that Rome could never teach.  You see, the Bible teaches that the ground of assurance is God's imputation of Christ's merits to the sinner.  That is an objective grounds.  That causes a man to look OUTSIDE of himself for assurance (to God).

----------


## RJB

> Phillipians 2:12-13 says it is GOD who is working and acting in a Christian man:


I don't disagree with that.






> Where do you get that you must do works in order to be saved from that verse?


It is through faith, but we are instructed to do good works in fear and trembling.  Why else would we have temptations to sin or to slack off of charity.  Yes God works through us, but we also have a desire to "do as we will."  We must be on guard against that.  Yes I can feel God working through me.  I can also feel the evil one trying to draw me from God.  No matter your denominations, there is that temptation.  *If you are saved by that 1st acceptance of faith, why would the devil try to draw you back if it is pointless for him?*

BTW I will try-- (I will fail at times  ) to be nicer to you Sola.  Deep behind these posts, behind the dead light of the computer screen, I'm seeing you more as a caring person of God.  I do mean it when I say that I pray for you.

----------


## RJB

> I'm not telling you not to  try, I'm telling you your SALVATION is not conditioned on your works.  *Nobody is saying that works are not important*.


  What are they then?  We are called to works by Christ Himself.




> But your church teaches that works themselves justify, rather than being the fruits of justification.  That's damnable heresy, and everyone who believes in it is lost.


  This is what I don't understand.  The words "Faith Alone" is absent from the bible except as "Not by Faith Alone."  We've been through that.   So not only that but you are telling me, not only are we saved by a doctrine not specifically mentioned in the bible, but we are damned if we have faith but do not believe in a doctrine not specifically mentioned in the bible and of course being damned for not believing faith alone, which isn't in the bible, isn't in the bible. (the repeat phrase is not a typo)  Do you have any wonder why I'm confused by your posts. 

On top of that I read of Jesus telling us in the gospel that if we love him we will keep his commandment, and I am told if I try to keep his commandment I'm damned?



I don't think that is what makes someone lost when one considers the evil committed in this world in the last century.  It wasn't Calvinist, Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, Orthodox, etc. who killed 100s millions of people, took over nations through banking and force of arms, yet somehow we see each other as enemies.  In some ways I do wonder if it's faith first and works will follow-- you and erowe1 live it.  Even Sola, who I don't get along with a lot, I do not see him as my enemy, but I do not understand as I explained above; Nowhere (until the 1500s) was believing in  "Faith Alone"  (I know faith saves, I'm talking the belief in doctrine Sola Fide) considered the only way into the Kingdom.  To me it's how it has always been for the last 2000 years we are saved by the grace of God through faith and the works that come after as inspired by God  (He works through us as Sola pointed out above thinking I'd disagree.)  It strikes me as odd that's the divider now.

----------


## RJB

And good night...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, that is because Rome confuses justification with sanctification.  In the Bible, justification is a one-time objective event that happens on the cross.  It is a historical event, something that happened in the past.  According to Rome, justification is a process that happens in the heart.  
> 
> This was what the Reformation was fought over.  What is the ground of assurance?  Rome had a seemingly spiritual description of how a man was made right with God, but in practice, Rome's doctrine taught man to look inward to his own personal righteousness for his assurance.  Man's works and the Holy Spirit's works became indistinguishable.  This destroys assurance.  And to this very day, Rome teaches that a man can go to Mass a million times in his life and NEVER be perfected.
> 
> The Bible teaches that a believer can be assured of His salvation because of God imputing Christ's righteousness to him.  This atonement PERFECTS man.  Paul says we can have PEACE with God.  Do you know how profound that is?  This is something that Rome could never teach.  You see, the Bible teaches that the ground of assurance is God's imputation of Christ's merits to the sinner.  That is an objective grounds.  That causes a man to look OUTSIDE of himself for assurance (to God).


Just out of curiosity, do you agree with the OTC people that anyone who ever doubts that they are regenerate is definitely unregenerate?




> What are they then?  We are called to works by Christ Himself.
> 
>   This is what I don't understand.  The words "Faith Alone" is absent from the bible except as "Not by Faith Alone."  We've been through that.   So not only that but you are telling me, not only are we saved by a doctrine not specifically mentioned in the bible, but we are damned if we have faith but do not believe in a doctrine not specifically mentioned in the bible and of course being damned for not believing faith alone, which isn't in the bible, isn't in the bible. (the repeat phrase is not a typo)  Do you have any wonder why I'm confused by your posts. 
> 
> On top of that I read of Jesus telling us in the gospel that if we love him we will keep his commandment, and I am told if I try to keep his commandment I'm damned?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what makes someone lost when one considers the evil committed in this world in the last century.  It wasn't Calvinist, Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, Orthodox, etc. who killed 100s millions of people, took over nations through banking and force of arms, yet somehow we see each other as enemies.  In some ways I do wonder if it's faith first and works will follow-- you and erowe1 live it.  Even Sola, who I don't get along with a lot, I do not see him as my enemy, but I do not understand as I explained above; Nowhere (until the 1500s) was believing in  "Faith Alone"  (I know faith saves, I'm talking the belief in doctrine Sola Fide) considered the only way into the Kingdom.  To me it's how it has always been for the last 2000 years we are saved by the grace of God through faith and the works that come after as inspired by God  (He works through us as Sola pointed out above thinking I'd disagree.)  It strikes me as odd that's the divider now.


I'm completely willing to work with anyone who supports reduction or abolition of the State to that end. 

This is primarily a political forum, but we're having a theological debate here.  I have no doubt I'd see you as an ally in the political forum, unless you were one of the rabid Ted Cruz people

The Bible is very clear on this.  Ephesians 2:8-9.  Its not about the phrase "sola fide", its about the theological concept, that Salvation is by grace through faith, not of anything a man can do.

The Roman Catholic Church gets this clearly, damnably, wrong.

This is not a secondary issue.  The Bible is clear that all who preach a false gospel are anathema.  That Rome itself denies that all Protestants are going to Hell in and of itself shows that their gospel is false, because the Bible is clear that all who preach a false gospel and do not repent will go to Hell.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Bible is very clear on this.  Ephesians 2:8-9.  Its not about the phrase "sola fide", its about the theological concept, that Salvation is by grace through faith, not of anything a man can do.
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church gets this clearly, damnably, wrong.


Since you decided to bring up those verses again, I'll repost this which I said earlier:

The Catholic Church completely agrees with that verse. We are not saved by works, obviously. No real Christian believes that. But I ask you, where does it say faith *alone*? It does not.

You should quote the next verse as well:




> For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.  F*or we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works,* which God prepared in advance for us to do.


The "works" in verse 8 are those that obligate God to pay you, they are not the same as the "good works" in verse 10 that a Christian must take care to perform. 

Take a look at Ephesians 4:17 and 5:18. Those verses shows clearly the way a Christian lives their life has an impact on their salvation.

Works are an integral part of our faith and cannot be separated from it. Faith without works is no faith at all. “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)




> This is not a secondary issue.  The Bible is clear that all who preach a false gospel are anathema.  That Rome itself denies that all Protestants are going to Hell in and of itself shows that their gospel is false, because the Bible is clear that all who preach a false gospel and do not repent will go to Hell.


The Church does not say that. It says that all those who knowing that the Church is preaching the Truth and rejects Her damns themselves because they are rejecting Christ Himself. There are definitely many Protestants in Heaven, I have no doubts about that.

----------


## RJB

> The Bible is very clear on this.  Ephesians 2:8-9.  Its not about the phrase "sola fide", its about the theological concept, that Salvation is by grace through faith, not of anything a man can do.


It says nothing about faith alone.  That passage is about getting your wanker snipped and the like.  If Luther had read the Gospel in his rage instead of the epistles you'd probably say it's "Love Alone" instead.



> The Roman Catholic Church gets this clearly, damnably, wrong.


  Read the Gospel, you may or may not be the damnable one.  I trust in God's mercy you're not.




> This is not a secondary issue.  The Bible is clear that all who preach a false gospel are anathema.  That Rome itself denies that all Protestants are going to Hell in and of itself shows that their gospel is false, because the Bible is clear that all who preach a false gospel and do not repent will go to Hell.


  The bible says NOT BY FAITH ALONE (James 2)  And no, The Catholic Church says anyone who professes the unbiblical "faith alone" may not receive the sacraments as a Catholic.  For someone who claims to dislike the Catholic Church, why does this exclusion so irritate you?  As I've said, I could care less if you or Sola don't accept me, it's only the post that state a distortion of my faith the get me posting in these pointless threads.

This time I mean it.  I'm exhausted, I'm going to sleep.  God bless.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think I'm done with this particular conversation for tonight.  I'll probably be online for awhile, but I don't really want to spend the next two hours debating this.  I'll get back to it tomorrow or the day after at the latest.

Until then, God bless you all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I guess my "Tomorrow" winded up being two months!  Lol!  RJB was right about one thing, I really do take forever to get back to things that I say I'll get back to

Sola, if you ever come back here, you really need to put "Sola Scriptura Protestants only" tags on threads like these  This thread was completely hijacked because we were supposed to be debating moderate, infralapsarian Calvinism against hardcore predestinarian, supralapsarian, common grace denying Calvinism.  Instead, you spent more than half the thread defending justification by faith.

My dad preached on Genesis 4 recently, and I think its blatantly obvious that God shows grace to Cain in those passages.  I think its also fairly clear that Cain was never saved.  So I don't see how anyone could deny "Common grace' in the light of that passage.  Matthew 5:45 is another blatant example.  I know OTC and some others assert that one's circumstances do not have anything to do with grace, because otherwise a torrential downpour on an elect person would be a curse.  I'd agree with this except for the context.  God was telling his people to treat their enemies the way that God treats his enemies, in the context of that verse.

And, if you affirm "common grace" I don't think you can really get away with the argument that God is proactively causing people to reject him.   Cain's story wouldn't make any sense if that was the case.  God "regretting that he made man" ("Regret" was obviously a metaphor) and his great sadness because of man's fallen, depraved state cannot possibly fit with it.

For these reasons, I believe infralapsarianism is more Biblical than supralapsarianism, and that common grace is a Biblical concept.  If you're still lurking, I would encourage you to actually log in because I'd be interested in debating this.

As for any other readers *I personally will only be engaging Bible-believing Protestants who affirm the Biblical gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.* I have no interest in having yet another debate with the God-haters in this particular thread.  We have other places to debate the authority of whatever "churches" you happen to attend.  Everyone else is free to do as they like.

At any rate, I still find this topic to be interesting.  I'm curious what the take of the other Reformed believers here is as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> St. Paul tells us In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to "Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
> 
> Notice how Paul puts oral tradition on the same level as written tradition. Why would he do that? He gives us the answer in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God..." So the oral traditions and the written were both the word of God. No wonder Paul was pleased when the Corinthians accepted the traditions that he passed on to them. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). It is sometimes claimed that the oral tradition that Paul is speaking of is what he later put into Scripture. But the Bible nowhere says this.
> 
> The Apostles taught in the same manner and, according to the Bible, apostolic teaching was the standard in the early Church: "And they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers" (Acts 2:42). Note that this took place before the first page of the New Testament was written.
> 
> It is only when we embrace Scripture *and* Sacred Tradition that we have the complete Word of God. And as Jesus once said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).





> You are trucking a lot of foreign concepts into that verse when you say that he's talking about "oral tradition" in a sense that resembles what this discussion is about.
> 
> He clearly specifies that he's talking about the traditions that he says "were taught *by us*." There is nothing about that verse that allows later generations to teach novel ideas and claim to have received them by oral tradition from the apostles.
> 
> What I insist on is exactly what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11:2, and exactly what Acts 2:42 mentions. It is that we adhere to the teachings of the apostles. Not later Church fathers, but the apostles.


Perfect answer for this assertion by Rome.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Erowe1 posted this on the other thread:



> You might be right. I think this is related to the difference you had with SF about whether God's predestining of sin were via just a withholding of grace or something more active than that. I recall in that conversation that I remarked that I didn't think that just saying withholding of grace were enough, and that because God is the creator and sustainer of all things, it had to be more than that. But I do think that describing his predestination of sin as a withholding of grace is a major part of it, and that the way he predestines sin and unbelief is not the same as the way he predestines faith and good works. To predestine us to sin, all God has to do is let us go according to our natures. It's true that our having of these natures in the first place ultimately goes back to God as the first cause of this universe in which it would be the case that we would have these natures. But when he brings people to faith, he intervenes by changing our natural inclination from disbelief to belief.


I agree completely with this post.  Sola, do you disagree with anything in that post?  Why or why not?

----------


## Brett85

Sola Fide, is predestination/limited atonement the only theological issue that you actually care about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola Fide, is predestination/limited atonement the only theological issue that you actually care about?


No.  But atonement/justification/election are the dividing lines of true religion and false religion, so these are the most important issues.

----------


## Brett85

> No.  But atonement/justification/election are the dividing lines of true religion and false religion, so these are the most important issues.


So basically everyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement isn't saved, which would include the vast majority of self described Christians and people like James Dobson, Billy Graham, etc?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So basically everyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement isn't saved, which would include the vast majority of self described Christians and people like James Dobson, Billy Graham, etc?


Despite the fact that I don't take the position that everyone who rejects limited atonement is unsaved (and thus, I disagree with SF), I do strongly believe that true Christians are a minority of professing Christians.

The only thing I know about James Dobson is that he wickedly endorsed the War in Iraq (he may or may not have recanted this, I don't know) but I strongly believe Billy Graham to be a false teacher.

Look at this video, posted by someone who was favorable of the liberal views of Billy Graham and Rober Schuller, this interview was from back in 1997:

http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...-06.us.avg._._

My mother had a different interpretation of what Graham said than I do, but the way I took that is that Billy Graham is saying that people from all religions could be saved without actually believing in Christ as long as they know they believe in "something."

That is NOT Biblical Christianity.  Its a blatant rejection of salvation through faith alone.

----------


## Brett85

> Despite the fact that I don't take the position that everyone who rejects limited atonement is unsaved (and thus, I disagree with SF), I do strongly believe that true Christians are a minority of professing Christians.
> 
> The only thing I know about James Dobson is that he wickedly endorsed the War in Iraq (he may or may not have recanted this, I don't know) but I strongly believe Billy Graham to be a false teacher.
> 
> Look at this video, posted by someone who was favorable of the liberal views of Billy Graham and Rober Schuller, this interview was from back in 1997:
> 
> http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...-06.us.avg._._
> 
> My mother had a different interpretation of what Graham said than I do, but the way I took that is that Billy Graham is saying that people from all religions could be saved without actually believing in Christ as long as they know they believe in "something."
> ...


I would have to look into what Graham said in more detail, but I don't believe that someone gets sent to hell simply for having certain political views, even if those views are wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Erowe1 posted this on the other thread:
> 
> I agree completely with this post.  Sola, do you disagree with anything in that post?  Why or why not?


I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with that.  I'd need more clarification.   I think the consistent biblical position is active reprobation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would have to look into what Graham said in more detail, but I don't believe that someone gets sent to hell simply for having certain political views, even if those views are wrong.


I wasn't intending to make any implication about James Dobson's salvation.  I was just saying that that was the only thing I knew about him.

Admittedly, the more someone knows about politics, the less I think a Christian would just blatantly be wrong about something like that.  But as far as I know, James Dobson probably doesn't know that much anyway.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So basically everyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement isn't saved, which would include the vast majority of self described Christians and people like James Dobson, Billy Graham, etc?


The two you mention...no I don't believe they are Christians and I don't think they preach the gospel.

----------


## Brett85

> The two you mention...no I don't believe they are Christians and I don't think they preach the gospel.


Lol.  Maybe you should just call your religion "the religion of Sola Fide."  Apparently you're the only person in the whole world who is saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with that.  I'd need more clarification.   I think the consistent biblical position is active reprobation.


Honestly, I feel like we're both saying, for all practical intents and purposes, the same thing.  But I feel like you're saying it in a way that makes God seem more malicious, even though we're saying the same thing.

Ultimately, this probably comes down to common grace and whether or not God has any love for the reprobate.  You would say that common grace doesn't exist and that God has absolutely no love for the reprobate.  I think that there is such thing as common grace and that God does have love for the damned, although I believe that they are also subject to his wrath, and that the love he has for the reprobate is different in both degree and nature than that which he has for the elect.  If you think that God has nothing but hatred for Pharaoh, Esau, and the other reprobates, it would make sense to believe that he actively makes them sin so that he can punish them.  By contrast, if you believe that God does have some love for the reprobate, despite the fact that they were created to be objects of his wrath and perfect justice, it makes sense to believe that God left them to their sinful natures and then justly punishes them for what they did.

It seems like you view this more as "God needed an excuse to punish the reprobate, thus sin."  Whereas I view it as "Sin can't go unpunished and if God saved everybody that wouldn't be consistent with his justice, thus punishment."

Even if in the particular cases of Pharaoh and the Assyrian King of Isaiah 10 God actively caused them to sin, I'd need more convincing than just that to say that that is what God does in EVERY case.

I'll let you respond to this, and then I'll post my thoughts on Matthew 5:45, Luke 13:34, and Genesis 4.

----------


## eduardo89

> The two you mention...no I don't believe they are Christians and I don't think they preach the gospel.


Good thing you're not the one who decides who is a Christian and who isn't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lol.  Maybe you should just call your religion "the religion of Sola Fide."  Apparently you're the only person in the whole world who is saved.


I'm pretty sure Sola's viewpoint is that most, if not all, limited atonement accepting monergists are saved.  That's a lot more than just him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lol.  Maybe you should just call your religion "the religion of Sola Fide."  Apparently you're the only person in the whole world who is saved.


Arminians like Dobson and Graham do not preach the gospel. If you don't preach the gospel, then you aren't a Christain. On top of that,  Dobson endorsed the work of pervert Dr. Kinsey and Billy Graham said that there is salvation outside of Christ.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm pretty sure Sola's viewpoint is that most, if not all, limited atonement accepting monergists are saved.  That's a lot more than just him.


Is his church composed of all limited atonement believing people?  And does his church teach that believing in limited atonement is essential for salvation?  And does he go around telling his church members that they'll go to hell if they don't accept the doctrine of limited atonement?  (I'm sure he can answer that better than you.  )

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is his church composed of all limited atonement believing people?  And does his church teach that believing in limited atonement is essential for salvation?  And does he go around telling his church members that they'll go to hell if they don't accept the doctrine of limited atonement?  (I'm sure he can answer that better than you.  )


That's a good question, actually.  I'm curious how he'd answer it.  I've never been to his church, so I don't know.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Arminians like Dobson and Graham do not preach the gospel. If you don't preach the gospel, then you aren't a Christian. On top of that,  Dobson endorsed the work of pervert Dr. Kinsey and Billy Graham said that there is salvation outside of Christ.


Who is Dr. Kinsey?

I agree with you completely on Billy Graham.  I've been saying this for quite awhile.  Not surprisingly, I ticked off a number of Catholics on another forum when I said it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Honestly, I feel like we're both saying, for all practical intents and purposes, the same thing.  But I feel like you're saying it in a way that makes God seem more malicious, even though we're saying the same thing.
> 
> Ultimately, this probably comes down to common grace and whether or not God has any love for the reprobate.  You would say that common grace doesn't exist and that God has absolutely no love for the reprobate.  I think that there is such thing as common grace and that God does have love for the damned, although I believe that they are also subject to his wrath, and that the love he has for the reprobate is different in both degree and nature than that which he has for the elect.  If you think that God has nothing but hatred for Pharaoh, Esau, and the other reprobates, it would make sense to believe that he actively makes them sin so that he can punish them.  By contrast, if you believe that God does have some love for the reprobate, despite the fact that they were created to be objects of his wrath and perfect justice, it makes sense to believe that God left them to their sinful natures and then justly punishes them for what they did.
> 
> It seems like you view this more as "God needed an excuse to punish the reprobate, thus sin."  Whereas I view it as "Sin can't go unpunished and if God saved everybody that wouldn't be consistent with his justice, thus punishment."
> 
> Even if in the particular cases of Pharaoh and the Assyrian King of Isaiah 10 God actively caused them to sin, I'd need more convincing than just that to say that that is what God does in EVERY case.
> 
> I'll let you respond to this, and then I'll post my thoughts on Matthew 5:45, Luke 13:34, and Genesis 4.


Common grace refuted...and all the verses you have questions about answered:

*Why Common Grace Is A Heresy*
http://understanding-ministries.co.u...is-heresy.html

*The Myth Of Common Grace*
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Common grace refuted...and all the verses you have questions about answered:
> 
> *Why Common Grace Is A Heresy*
> http://understanding-ministries.co.u...is-heresy.html
> 
> *The Myth Of Common Grace*
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28


I've read through the second one before, and I just read through the first one.

A lot of the verses in the first link seem to be trying to refute the idea that unbelievers can do good things.  I have no problem with the idea that everything the unbelievers do is, in some sense, evil (Isaiah 64:6.)  Even then, I disagree with the implied presupposition that it is not permissible for believers to work with unbelievers for any political cause.  Take the anti-slavery movement of the 19th century.  Slavery is WRONG, Biblically, despite the fact that unbelievers who fight against slavery are still evil.  Nothing the unbeliever does is from a motivation of serving Christ, thus it is sin, but there are still different degrees of sin.  Adolf Hitler is more guilty because he killed 6 million Jews than he would have been if he did not do it.  He still would have been sinning either way, but to do it was the greater sin.

Now... I didn't see Matthew 5:45 addressed anywhere.  That passage is specifically telling us to love our enemies the way God does, hence the example of the rain.  This is NOT possible if God actually just hates his enemies.

In Genesis 4, God mercifully spares the life of Cain, a reprobate.  And before Cain kills Abel, God approaches Cain and warns him of where his sin will lead, despite the fact that God ultimately intends for Abel to die at Cain's hand.

And, in Luke 13:34, Jesus weeps for the city of Jerusalem because they were unwilling to accept him as their Lord and Savior.  Now, ultimately, I agree with you that those people are not elect and that God chose not to save them.  But, Jesus still seems to feel genuine compassion for them.  This does not strike me as a "I'm going to give them an instruction they can't follow so that I can justly punish them" sort of thing.  

I can't put of massive walls of scriptural text like either of your links, my scriptural knowledge is comparatively not great.  But, I do have those...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've read through the second one before, and I just read through the first one.
> 
> A lot of the verses in the first link seem to be trying to refute the idea that unbelievers can do good things.  I have no problem with the idea that everything the unbelievers do is, in some sense, evil (Isaiah 64:6.)  Even then, I disagree with the implied presupposition that it is not permissible for believers to work with unbelievers for any political cause.  Take the anti-slavery movement of the 19th century.  Slavery is WRONG, Biblically, despite the fact that unbelievers who fight against slavery are still evil.  Nothing the unbeliever does is from a motivation of serving Christ, thus it is sin, but there are still different degrees of sin.  Adolf Hitler is more guilty because he killed 6 million Jews than he would have been if he did not do it.  He still would have been sinning either way, but to do it was the greater sin.
> 
> Now... I didn't see Matthew 5:45 addressed anywhere.  That passage is specifically telling us to love our enemies the way God does, hence the example of the rain.  This is NOT possible if God actually just hates his enemies.
> 
> In Genesis 4, God mercifully spares the life of Cain, a reprobate.  And before Cain kills Abel, God approaches Cain and warns him of where his sin will lead, despite the fact that God ultimately intends for Abel to die at Cain's hand.
> 
> And, in Luke 13:34, Jesus weeps for the city of Jerusalem because they were unwilling to accept him as their Lord and Savior.  Now, ultimately, I agree with you that those people are not elect and that God chose not to save them.  But, Jesus still seems to feel genuine compassion for them.  This does not strike me as a "I'm going to give them an instruction they can't follow so that I can justly punish them" sort of thing.  
> ...


Matthew 5:45 explained:

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'll take a look.

----------


## Terry1

Lucifer and a third of the angels in heaven that followed him committed evil and sin against God.  So by Sola's interpretation then "God is the author of sin and evil".  What Sola doesn't understand is that God gave Lucifer and the angels in heaven "free will" to "choose" either evil or good, for God or against God.  It was not Gods intention that any should perish with regard to Lucifer, a third of the heavenly angels or mankind.  

Lucifer is the author of evil, not God.  Everything God gave the angels and mankind was meant to be pure and good. God can not even look upon sin.  This is why Jesus thought that God had abandoned Him while He was being crucified saying, "my God why hast thou abandoned me".  God could not look upon Jesus while He bore the sins of the world in his body.   Because God wants his children to love Him freely without force.  Forcing His creation to love Him is not true love.

If God wanted to force His creation to love Him, then there would have never been the fall of Lucifer, the angels or mankind.  To say that God did this on purpose is to say that God is the same as some sadistic tormentor, which we know isn't true.

So then you would have to come to the logical God given common sense and understand why God gave His angels and mankind the ability to choose opposite Him.  Why God says "give me gold tried in the fire", why Jesus said only the overcomers would He confess before the Father in heaven".  God is looking for those who will choose Him freely, love Him freely in  the wisdom and knowledge of how much God loves His own children and creation.

----------


## Terry1

Being turned over to a reprobate mind is the result of ignoring the calling of God upon one's life.  Hardening of the heart happens only after God knows anyone will not come to God or return to God.  God then fills them up with His wrath and uses them as He sees fit to fulfill His plans design.  

Just because God has the foreknowledge of who will harden their hearts against Him does not mean that God is the cause of this.  God hardened Pharaoh's heart "further".  Pharaoh's heart was already hardened against God and Israel as scripture illustrates.  God hastened Pharaoh's heart to be hardened further to fulfill His plan and also that of Pharaoh's servants.  God will hasten His plan to fulfill it as scripture tells us.

Both believers and unbelievers hearts can become hardened by and through disbelief.  Believers can only do this by ignoring the voice of the Holy Spirit after they come into the knowledge and wisdom of Christ and remain in that state for too long.  God gives the believer space and time to repent, then at some point they are turned over to their own strong delusions, they are as a branch in the true Vine that has been cut off because of their unbelief and bearing no fruit and are then burned at that point.  John 15:1-5.  At this point--they have become reprobates from which there is no forgiveness or return.  Only God knows when someone won't return and does this to them.

Only a believer can commit the sin of grieving the Holy Spirit, because they have become partakers of that same Spirit.  Unbelievers can not do this obviously because they have not become partakers of the Spirit.  

[B]Hebrews 6: 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,  5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,  6 if they fall away,* to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.*




*John 15 

The True Vine

1 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.  2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.  3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.  4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.  6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.*

*Revelation 2: 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.[f]  22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their[g] deeds.  23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.*

----------

