Clarity of Scripture

[A Cup Of Tea]

This is an assertion without any argument provided.

You are not a Protestant?

 

[omega2xx]

Hi Ahanu —

If you study typography as I have done, you'll find there's a golden rule:
People read easiest what they read the most.

That is, reading (and seeing) like anything else, becomes a habit. And habits assume expectations. So the idea that any text – let alone sacra doctrina which is unlike any other genre – is self-explanatory and needs to commentary says more about the reader than the text.

That is good advice but we should not limit our study of figurative language only parables, We also.d need to include allegory, metaphors, symbolism, idioms, etc ., everything we use in language today. Col 2:16-17 mentions several things that are mere shadows of the truth. As a general rule, figurative language teaches spiritual truths. On things we need to keep in mind that all allegories are based on a literal, historical event. Gal 4:21-31 is a good example.

The Sabbath is a "sign" of what God has done for us: Ex 31:13 and Deut 5:15. He literally freed Israel from literal bondage; he has literally freed us from spiritual bondage.

IMO we do not have enough teaching about types, and other figurative language.

Jn 16:25 - These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; and hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.

 

[omega2xx]

Men can go corrupted. So if the Jews go corrupted, God will re-assign the Catholics as the authority as His earthly representative. Similarly, if the Catholics go corrupted, God can re-assign the role to the Protestants.

Augustine existed long before the emergence of the Protestants. His comment thus has nothing to do with the Protestants. He only means that only the NT Canon worked out back then by the Catholics is the only authenticated Bible. That's why Protestants shares the same NT Canon with the Catholics.

The Catholics worked out one canon, which the Protestants rejected. What Protestants believe is what God inspired the original apostles to write, which was long before Augustine. There is no evidence God assigned the Catholics to do anything. No denomination is God's representative on earth.

 

[Thomas]

The Catholics worked out one canon, which the Protestants rejected.

Just to be pedantic, 'the Catholics' didn't work out the canon, the Church worked from a canon which had been accepted a long time before the schism between East and West which left us with Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions.

The Roman Catholic Church did not ratify the canon until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Reformation, because the Reform communions rejected the canon that had been believed by the church until that time.

 

[Ahanu]

The Roman Catholic Church did not ratify the canon until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Reformation, because the Reform communions rejected the canon that had been believed by the church until that time.

I know Martin Luther, for example, questioned whether or not some books should be in the Bible. James was one of them. But I'm not sure why Martin Luther and others rejected some of these books. Wikipedia only says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide),[47] but this was not generally accepted among his followers.


However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. In addition, Luther moved the books that later are called the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I know Martin Luther, for example, questioned whether or not some books should be in the Bible. James was one of them. But I'm not sure why Martin Luther and others rejected some of these books...

Sadly Luther seems to have held a rather pessimistic theological view of anthropology.

It goes right back to the view of human nature. The traditional view is that human nature was created good, that man fell, but that although fallen, his nature is not utterly corrupted, whereas the Reformation view is that the nature is so corrupted it is incapable of doing any good whatsoever. Thus 'works' are 'pointless' in that any virtue in the good done, is God's alone, all that matters is believing that God saves. So Luther contended with the Church that man can do good, that man is capable of self-generated virtuous acts.

Calvin went further and said that some men are predestined to be saved, and they will be saved, and others are predestined to perdition, and they will go to hell, and this is non-negotiable, so even their faith in that regard is suspect, in that a damned man might erroneously have faith in a God who saves, without knowing that God does, and has already decided who He is going to save, and and it is not him, or rather, whatever good work he does, it's of no account, he's predestined for the pit.

The predestined debate was done and dusted 500 years previously, but like so many things, when the community is ignorant of its history, its inclined to make the same mistakes.

Eriugena offered a masterly rebuttal of the predestination debate, but even though he used Augustine as his authority, he still managed to confound his audience with his sophisticated metaphysical argument, so they did the 'safe' thing they do with things they don't understand, they declared his thinking heretic!

 

[omega2xx]

Hi Ahanu —

Sadly Luther seems to have held a rather pessimistic theological view of anthropology.

It goes right back to the view of human nature. The traditional view is that human nature was created good, that man fell, but that although fallen, his nature is not utterly corrupted, whereas the Reformation view is that the nature is so corrupted it is incapable of doing any good whatsoever. Thus 'works' are 'pointless' in that any virtue in the good done, is God's alone, all that matters is believing that God saves. So Luther contended with the Church that man can do good, that man is capable of self-generated virtuous acts.

Calvin went further and said that some men are predestined to be saved, and they will be saved, and others are predestined to perdition, and they will go to hell, and this is non-negotiable, so even their faith in that regard is suspect, in that a damned man might erroneously have faith in a God who saves, without knowing that God does, and has already decided who He is going to save, and and it is not him, or rather, whatever good work he does, it's of no account, he's predestined for the pit.

The predestined debate was done and dusted 500 years previously, but like so many things, when the community is ignorant of its history, its inclined to make the same mistakes.

Eriugena offered a masterly rebuttal of the predestination debate, but even though he used Augustine as his authority, he still managed to confound his audience with his sophisticated metaphysical argument, so they did the 'safe' thing they do with things they don't understand, they declared his thinking heretic!

I probably need to start by identifying myself as a 4 point Calvinist.

The debate between God's sovereignty and man's free will is a theological knot man has not been able to untie or even unloosen. What you say is the "traditional view" only applies to Arminianism. As you know the Calvinist are on the other side of the theological fence. Calvinism does not teach some are predestined to hell, although some do believe it does. That truth is clearly expressed in 2 Pet 3:9 and I Tim 2:14. Calvin never claimed to have solved the problem. He put it in a Scriptural context and left it there. IMO, he omitted some Scripture the other sided uses to support their views including 2 Peter 3:9 & I Tim 2:14. If it not God's will for any to perish, He would have elected them also. We all tend to do this.

What we have is an antinomy--2 truths that SEEM to be contradictory, and you can't play one against the other without destroying them both. If God says things that seem contradictory, we are to believe them both and consider they are not contradictory to God, and that it is our lack of compete understanding that makes them seem contradictory.

Because the Jews do not believe that the Messiah could die, they reject all Messianic prophecies the say He would. The NT gives us the complete information needed to see the whole truth.

When you were born did you start to live or start to die? They are contradictory words, but both are true.

I lean toward Calvinism because if God is not sovereign, nothing else matters.

When Jesus said He wanted to gather the children of Jerusalem like a hen gathers her chick under her wings but they were unwilling, that indicates to me they chose not to.

However Acts 13:48 SEEMS to say they didn't. As does words like chosen, elected and adopted. Donald and Hillary cannot elect themselves for president--they must be elected by an outside force. The orphan can't decide which couple will adopt him, Again it is outside their authority. The baby did not play a part in their birth and neither does the baby born again.

I hope this post will irritate everyone enough that they will start considering every verse in the Bible as true, not just the interpretations they have been taught.

WE all need to be Berean Christians.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I hope this post will irritate everyone enough that they will start considering every verse in the Bible as true, not just the interpretations they have been taught.

You hope to gain consensus through irritation? That is an unusual approach indeed!

 

[Thomas]

Ah ... I'm assuming that's Berean in the modified Calvinist style of John Barclay, as opposed to 'Berean Christadelphians' or the Bereans of the Bible Student movement...

 

[Thomas]

What you say is the "traditional view" only applies to Arminianism.

No, by traditional view I meant the orthodox Christian communions prior to the Reformation, so the latter being European in focus, I meant the Roman Catholic Church.

Calvinism does not teach some are predestined to hell, although some do believe it does.

...God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others (John Calvin, Inst. III, 21, 5).

 

[omega2xx]

Ah ... I'm assuming that's Berean in the modified Calvinist style of John Barclay, as opposed to 'Berean Christadelphians' or the Bereans of the Bible Student movement...

No. The Bereans with great eagerness examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so---Acts 17:11.

 

[omega2xx]

No, by traditional view I meant the orthodox Christian communions prior to the Reformation, so the latter being European in focus, I meant the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic theology is basically arminianism. Also the RCC was not orthodox. Non-Biblical traditions, that carry a penalty for non-compliance makes them not orthodox.

As much as I respect Calvin, no one has perfect theology. Since God does not desire any to perish, He would have elected everyone if they did not have free will.

 

[Thomas]

Catholic theology is basically arminianism.

er, no ... Arminianism is a departure from Catholic theology. Catholic theology was there before the 17th century.
It's a semi-Pelagianism.

As much as I respect Calvin, no one has perfect theology.

Quite, but that does not detract from the fact that he did teach predestination, that was the point I was making.

Since God does not desire any to perish...

That's basically the position of the Tradition, and of RCC and the Orthodox Patriarchates.

 

[omega2xx]

er, no ... Arminianism is a departure from Catholic theology. Catholic theology was there before the 17th century.
It's a semi-Pelagianism.


Quite, but that does not detract from the fact that he did teach predestination, that was the point I was making.


That's basically the position of the Tradition, and of RCC and the Orthodox Patriarchates.

Catholicism is part Armininism because they believe in salvation by works and salvation can be lost.

You were making the point that Calvin taught some were predestined to hell. He may have taught that but if he did, he was wrong as 2 Peet 3:9 & I Tim 2:4 indicate.
't
If orthodox means confirming to the doctrines of a denomination, I can accept that definition. If it means conforming to the doctrines of the Bible, I can accept that definition.

 

[Thomas]

Catholicism is part Armininism ...

OK. Perhaps you could point me to where Catholic theology references the works Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformed theologian?

because they believe in salvation by works ...

Who, Catholics? No, my friend. Salvation is by faith and faith preceeds works, in the same way that intention is prior to act.

... and salvation can be lost.

Quite. Jesus taught that. He even suffered the pangs of that on the Cross. (cf Matthew 12:45 & Luke 11:26, Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34). The texts you cite do not indicate that salvation cannot be lost.

 

[omega2xx]

OK. Perhaps you could point me to where Catholic theology references the works Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformed theologian?


Who, Catholics? No, my friend. Salvation is by faith and faith preceeds works, in the same way that intention is prior to act.


Quite. Jesus taught that. He even suffered the pangs of that on the Cross. (cf Matthew 12:45 & Luke 11:26, Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34). The texts you cite do not indicate that salvation cannot be lost.

Further to my comment above ...

If one wants to look into the 'Mysteries' of the Tradition, it is then that 'keys' are required. These are supplied by commentaries, which themselves derive from the secret oral teachings. Scripture was written in an age when the scribes had to be circumspect.

(The problem is tougher today than ever, as Christianity has gone through an accelerating process of 'rationalisation' the mystical out of what is indisputably a mystical religion. An that landscape has been clouded by all manner of fanciful interpretations under the guise of 'esoteric Christianity' and latter-day 'spirituality'.)

Mark then, the earliest Gospel, speaks of 'the Messianic Secret'. Matthew and Luke speak to a Hebrew and Gentile audience respectively. It is John's Gospel, writing late and edited by the Pauline/Johannine school at Ephesus, speaks most explicitly of the Mysteries. This is one reason why Patristic commentary on John is notably less in evidence than the Synoptics, even though Fathers such as Origen held it in such high regard, precisely because much of this was covered by the disciplina arcani.

A good example is the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10.
The exegesis I grew up with, and the one I think most commonly understood, is the one in which we are asked the question 'Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers?' (v36) and thus measure ourselves against the text, and be a good neighbour like the Samaritan. Essentially a moral message. Not wrong, but simply one dimension of the parable.

An earlier exegesis from the Tradition is the spiritual/mystical interpretation and treats the text differently. In this contemplation, 'we' are not one of the three who pass on the road, we are the man robbed, stripped, beaten and left for dead. The first man passes is a priest, the second a Levite, the keepers of the Law ... neither help. Help comes from an unexpected quarter ... the one rejected by the man to whom Jesus is speaking — Himself.

The good Samaritan is Christ, and the mystical dimension of the text unfolds from there..

Right---the robbers are Satan and his demons---the inn is the church and we are the inn keeper---it also teaches the second coming.

 

[omega2xx]

Men can go corrupted. So if the Jews go corrupted, God will re-assign the Catholics as the authority as His earthly representative. Similarly, if the Catholics go corrupted, God can re-assign the role to the Protestants.

Augustine existed long before the emergence of the Protestants. His comment thus has nothing to do with the Protestants. He only means that only the NT Canon worked out back then by the Catholics is the only authenticated Bible. That's why Protestants shares the same NT Canon with the Catholics.

God does not assign any religious organization as His earthly representatives. All Christians are his earthly representatives on earth---You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth---Acts 1:8

Protestants and Catholics do no share the same canon of Scripture.

 

[omega2xx]

OK. Perhaps you could point me to where Catholic theology references the works Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformed theologian?


Who, Catholics? No, my friend. Salvation is by faith and faith preceeds works, in the same way that intention is prior to act.


Quite. Jesus taught that. He even suffered the pangs of that on the Cross. (cf Matthew 12:45 & Luke 11:26, Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34). The texts you cite do not indicate that salvation cannot be lost.

The Catholic do no have to reference Arminius, their theology teaches some of what he taught.

The official Catholic view is salvation by grace but their other teaching deny that. What they include is not only worse, it is not Biblical. They say Jesus death did not accomplish a full and finished salvation. The say there is no salvation apart from the sacraments mediated through the priesthood. They say grace is instituted the the church. The say their is no salvation out side the church. Then they cap it off by saying protestant churches are not real churches.

I did not post verse that say salvation can't be lost, but now I will.

Before I do that, I will tell you that when Jesus say believing in Him we will live for ever, never die, etc and you say we can lose our salvation, you are calling Jesus a liar.

Jn 3:16 - Gor God so loved eh world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life

Jn 3:18 - He who believes in Me shall not come into judgment...If I do not come into judgment, I can' t lose my salvation
Jn 6:37 - All the Father gives Me will come to Me and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out.
Jn 6:39-40 - This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all He has given me, I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life...
I Pet 1:23 - For you have been born again NOT of seed that is perishable, but IMPERISHABLE...

There are others but if those don't convince you nothing will.

 

[Thomas]

The Catholic do no have to reference Arminius, their theology teaches some of what he taught.

To be clear, Arminius, Like Calvin, and any other Reformation theologian, taught some things that were in line with Catholic theology, and some things that were not.

How can they not?

The official Catholic view is salvation by grace but their other teaching deny that.

What other teachings?

What they include is not only worse, it is not Biblical.

Like what?

They say Jesus death did not accomplish a full and finished salvation.

Where?

The say there is no salvation apart from the sacraments mediated through the priesthood.

No, all salvation is through Christ. The priesthood is a means of its transmission.

How can it be otherwise?

They say grace is instituted the the church.

No. The Church is instituted for the transmission of grace, not the other way round.

They say their is no salvation out side the church.

Oh, that's an old saw. We do say that ... are you sure you understand what we mean by it, though?

(You do know we've spoken of 'anonymous Christians' since the second century?)

I will tell you that when Jesus say believing in Him we will live for ever, never die, etc and you say we can lose our salvation, you are calling Jesus a liar.

No I'm not. I'm saying it's possible for a man to lose his faith. Salvation is not a magic wand.

Are you telling me that once I'm saved, regardless of what I do, even if I lose my faith in Christ, my salvation is guaranteed?

Jn 3:16 - Gor God so loved eh world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life

Quite. But that does not say that if one stops believing in Him, it doesn't matter, eternal life is guaranteed anyway.

"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke 22:31-32.

So the risk of losing one's faith, and one's salvation, is ever at one's elbow ...

 

[omega2xx]

To be clear, Arminius, Like Calvin, and any other Reformation theologian, taught some things that were in line with Catholic theology, and some things that were not.

How can they not

As far as I can tell, Calvin did reference Scripture for all of his theology. That doesn't mean he was always right, but it is necessary to say why we believe what we believe and Scripture does that.


What other teachings?


Like what?


Where?[/QUOTE]

Without a back quote I can tell what you are asking for. l In general the Catholics use a lot of non-Biblical tradition in their theology. Non-Biblical traditions are find if they don't carry a penalty for non-compliance. How about eating meant on Friday being a sin. How about a priest having the authority to determine penance for our sins. How about the requirement to confess to anyone other than to God. How about the Catholic denomination being the only true church.

No, all salvation is through Christ. The priesthood is a means of its transmission.

How can it be otherwise?

According to the one you claim to be the first pope, all Christians are priest. There is no Biblical authority to separate some as being over the others.

No. The Church is instituted for the transmission of grace, not the other way round.

The Bible dowesn't say that. Biblically speaking only God can transmit grace and He transmits it abundantly to His children.

Oh, that's an old saw. We do say that ... are you sure you understand what we mean by it, though?

Without a backquote I have no idea what you are referring to.

(You do know we've spoken of 'anonymous Christians' since the second century?)

I believe it was a Catholic theologian who coined the phrase "the invisible church. WE can't tell by looking or even can't be sure if their conduct is no Christian. That is one reason the pope cant say non-Catholics are not Christians.

No I'm not. I'm saying it's possible for a man to lose his faith. Salvation is not a magic wand.

God give us our faith. It is not possible to lose it permanently. I have never suggested salvation is a magic wand.

Are you telling me that once I'm saved, regardless of what I do, even if I lose my faith in Christ, my salvation is guaranteed?

No I am telling you what the Bible says. Many times the Bible says if we believe in Jesus and put our faith in Him we will live forever---never die--not come into judgment. is he lying. Your first pope says we have been born again of imperishahabe seed(I Pet 23). What does imperishable mean? One truly born again will continue to sin, but they will not practice it and they will repent of it when they do.

Quite. But that does not say that if one stops believing in Him, it doesn't matter, eternal life is guaranteed anyway.

A Christian can become a prodigal, but one you truly believe, in Jesus, you will never permanently stop.

"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke 22:31-32.

Will Jesus do that for us when we deny Him? Will it be effective? What was Jesus last words to Peter---Feed my sheep, tend my lambs---feed my sheep. Evidentlay Jesus's prayer were answered.

So the risk of losing one's faith, and one's salvation, is ever at one's elbow ...

How can one lose their faith?