Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?


  • Total voters
    42

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,420
1,620
43
San jacinto
✟132,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, they affirmed which books were inspired and canonical.

The earliest gospel wasn’t written until around the 50s. The last gospel was written around 90 or so.
I am aware, but the issue is you're claiming they didn't have the NT prior to its canonization. Which simply isn't true, and if your contention is that while the apostles were still alive and the Scriptures were being written there was no written document for them to rely on it's rather silly since they had living witnesses, not simply oral traditions.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,635
13,740
72
✟375,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yes, they affirmed which books were inspired and canonical.

The earliest gospel wasn’t written until around the 50s. The last gospel was written around 90 or so.
Nevertheless, the RCC narrative is that the RCC created the NT at the Council of Nicea, not merely that the Council of Nicea was an ecumenical council of which the RCC was a minor participant, which recognized the authority of four gospels, a record of the acts of the apostles, multiple epistles and one eschatological writing.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,420
1,620
43
San jacinto
✟132,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nevertheless, the RCC narrative is that the RCC created the NT at the Council of Nicea, not merely that the Council of Nicea was an ecumenical council of which the RCC was a minor participant, which recognized the authority of four gospels, a record of the acts of the apostles, multiple epistles and one eschatological writing.
Nicea had nothing to do with canonization, there is one mention by Jerome about them recognizing the book of Judith but it's not clear if he was misled by spurious information, or was refering to Judith being used in the proceedings of the council.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSRG
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,501
870
Midwest
✟164,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nevertheless, the RCC narrative is that the RCC created the NT at the Council of Nicea, not merely that the Council of Nicea was an ecumenical council of which the RCC was a minor participant, which recognized the authority of four gospels, a record of the acts of the apostles, multiple epistles and one eschatological writing.
How is it the "RCC narrative" that the New Testament was created at the Council of Nicaea? I don't think I've ever seen a Catholic say that; I'm not saying no Catholic ever has, just that I don't remember ever seeing it. I've seen a few Protestants say the canon was created or declared at Nicaea, but mostly it's a claim I've seen from non-Christians.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,140
1,189
Visit site
✟258,543.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
There's a difference between mockery and insult. If you can't handle being gently mocked, then you shouldn't be throwing out disparaging comments.

You've offered nothing except trying to get me to read RCC documents, which are not the primary historical sources. I've read the councils and many of the church fathers, and RCC claims don't line up with them when read in context. So there's no reason for me to read a secondary source like the catechism, because I've made my opinion on the basis of primary sources.

Hardly. Conspiracy theories are the product of people with wild imaginations and almost assuredly fail any evidentiary test. Satan's plans and the way his kingdom works doesn't involve intricate plans, but simple working on the ambitions of men for power and control.

I've heard of him, though I prefer reading older works rather than recently written ones.

All of this is rather irrelevant, other than seeming to be attempts to get me to put on a tin foil hat.

The Roman Catholic Church is just as any other human institution, a mixed bag of well meaning people and corrupt individuals. It is not God's church, which crosses denominational lines since the entire body of Christ is a member of God's church. So the RCC is just another Christian denomination, alongside all the others.

What do you think constitutes the division between new and old? Is Israel still the exclusive people of God. or has He abandoned national israel and re-fashioned the lump?
Paul tells us the attitude we are to have toward the Jews who have not accepted Christ. We do not destroy the law and the prophets, but by the grace of God, we fulfil
You did hear of the Old and New covenant I assume? God did not abandon Israel, He lead them forward. Some refused to follow

The principle is the same. There were not multiple Israels as shown when Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well. She tried to say that her people worship on this mountain because Jacob dug that well. Jesus spoke to her as if to say, oh yeah? The Temple is in Jerusalem, and salvation is of the Jews. He corrected her by saying there are no denominations. God did not abandon Jerusalem when the other 10 tribes rebelled and broke away.

God does not abandon His Church founded on Peter just because some decide to rebel and break away. If the reformation were true, we would see a spotless bride, but we find a mess of conflicting teaching. What is your ideal church. What are the first principles to which we are to return?

Let’s see the first principles and see what teaching lines up.

1) Does God obey His own commands, or are we to be as slaves to serve the whims of our master?
Most Christians agree that the servant role is what separates Christianity from other religions. Our God is not a politician such as we have in the USA, where Congress makes rules for thee, but not for me. The rule for men today is do what I say, judge my words not me. Jesus on the other hand tells us to follow Him. Do what I do, and you will understand what I say.

Jesus subjected Himself to all of the Law. He was circumcised, which is a symbol of subjection to the Law, although He is not a subject but the Word of God Himself. He underwent Baptism as a sign of repentance, although He Never sinned and needed not repentance. He gave us the example to fulfill all righteousness. He kept the commandments of God to lead us in the way of humility.

He came to Earth, not in full glory, but in abject poverty and humility and was placed in a feeding trough at His birth. God commands us to honor our mother and father. Would He disobey His own command and treat His mother as a common woman? Mary conceived the Word of God and creator of the universe in her womb, and that same Word of God was subject to her for thirty years. No other human can or ever will claim as much. Is she honored in your church?

According to the law of God, a woman cannot have children by two different fathers while both fathers still live, and not be guilty of adultery. The law also does not permit a woman to have a child by another father while she is married. Would God obey His own law?

If Mary had children with Joseph, then the law of God is broken, or applies only to humans, not to God. Yet, if Mary is a perpetual virgin, she remains daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Does your church teach the purity of God’s law and His mother?

After His Resurrection and before His Ascension, Jesus breathed on His Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. Does your church teach confession of sins, or is that ignored and considered unnecessary?

At the last supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist, saying this IS my body and this IS the new covenant poured out in my blood. He also said that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Does your church teach the same?

On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles as tongues of fire, and they began to speak of the great things of God. Does your church teach the baptism of fire and the seal of the Holy Spirit in confirmation or the baptism of John only?

Does your church teach the sacred character of marriage or does it allow divorce? Does it uphold the chastity of marital intercourse, or does it allow contraception?

Does your Church anoint the sick with oil with elders of the church according to scripture, or is that considered superstition?

Does your church have vocations for those called to preach the gospel and ecclesial authority to assure the purity of the Gospel, the faith once delivered to the saints? Or is it subject to the whims of democratic vote?

How do you want to get back to biblical principles? Which direction do you point? Should people follow you, or has the path been laid for 2000 years? What is the basis for your position?

I can take gentle mockery. I think it is rather funny that you view me as a mad man in need of medication and wearing a tinfoil hat. I thank you for that image. I am not ashamed of the Gospel.
I am glad that you will not listen to my words, as you have to figure it out for yourself, but if you will not follow where many holy men have gone before, where exactly are you going and why?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,635
13,740
72
✟375,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Nicea had nothing to do with canonization, there is one mention by Jerome about them recognizing the book of Judith but it's not clear if he was misled by spurious information, or was refering to Judith being used in the proceedings of the council.
Quite true. However, the RCC narrative is that Nicea was the birthplace of the New Testament at the hands of its midwife, the RCC. Concerning Jerome, as you probably know, he rejected the deuterocanonical books as being part of the canon, based on linguistic issues (they were not written originally in Hebrew but came much later, appearing in the Septuagint). Subsequently, under pressure, he did translate them into Latin.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,501
870
Midwest
✟164,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Quite true. However, the RCC narrative is that Nicea was the birthplace of the New Testament at the hands of its midwife, the RCC. Concerning Jerome, as you probably know, he rejected the deuterocanonical books as being part of the canon, based on linguistic issues (they were not written originally in Hebrew but came much later, appearing in the Septuagint). Subsequently, under pressure, he did translate them into Latin.
Again, as I said just two posts before this one:

How is it the "RCC narrative" that the New Testament was created at the Council of Nicaea? I don't think I've ever seen a Catholic say that; I'm not saying no Catholic ever has, just that I don't remember ever seeing it. I've seen a few Protestants say the canon was created or declared at Nicaea, but mostly it's a claim I've seen from non-Christians.

So again, how is it the "RCC narrative"? I don't see Catholics claim this. "The canon was settled at Nicaea" is much more commonly a claim I've seen from non-Christians who try to argue something like "Constantine created the bible canon". Catholics refer to the Council of Rome and Council of Carthage (or Council of Hippo) as the councils around that period that declared it, not the Council of Nicaea.

You've made this claim that this is the "RCC narrative" multiple times, even though after the first time you did so, RileyG (catholic) replied to it and said this wasn't the case:

Hmmm….Are you thinking of the Synod of Hippo and Council of Rome? The Council of Nicea was about Christ’s divinity and the nature of the trinity followed by the council of Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,635
13,740
72
✟375,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Again, as I said just two posts before this one:

How is it the "RCC narrative" that the New Testament was created at the Council of Nicaea? I don't think I've ever seen a Catholic say that; I'm not saying no Catholic ever has, just that I don't remember ever seeing it. I've seen a few Protestants say the canon was created or declared at Nicaea, but mostly it's a claim I've seen from non-Christians.

So again, how is it the "RCC narrative"? I don't see Catholics claim this. "The canon was settled at Nicaea" is much more commonly a claim I've seen from non-Christians who try to argue something like "Constantine created the bible canon". Catholics refer to the Council of Rome and Council of Carthage (or Council of Hippo) as the councils around that period that declared it, not the Council of Nicaea.

You've made this claim that this is the "RCC narrative" multiple times, even though after the first time you did so, RileyG (catholic) replied to it and said this wasn't the case:
Catholics rarely, if ever, are quite that direct. They do, however, claim that the Bible is the product of the Church (i.e. the RCC). Without the RCC there would be no New Testament, would there?

The Council of Trent, additionally, certified the canon of their Bible in contrast to the 66-book canon used by most Protestant denominations.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,420
1,620
43
San jacinto
✟132,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Catholics rarely, if ever, are quite that direct. They do, however, claim that the Bible is the product of the Church (i.e. the RCC). Without the RCC there would be no New Testament, would there?

The Council of Trent, additionally, certified the canon of their Bible in contrast to the 66-book canon used by most Protestant denominations.
I understand and sympathize with what you're saying, but the factual details about the where and the when of it matter. Your point becomes less forceful when you accuse Catholics of pointing to a particular council that doesn't play into their narrative on the canon at all.

That Catholics often treat those councils as being authoritative declarations of what is and isn't canon, rather than clarification and recognition of what already was common practice to prevent using recently written psuedoepigraphs is certainly an issue but recognizing which councils were involved in the canonization process is important.

So please, be a little more cautious in correctly identifying what Catholics actually say on the matter rather than providing a basis for the issue to be diverted to factual inaccuracies in your statements.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,668
3,306
Minnesota
✟221,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Nevertheless, the RCC narrative is that the RCC created the NT at the Council of Nicea, not merely that the Council of Nicea was an ecumenical council of which the RCC was a minor participant, which recognized the authority of four gospels, a record of the acts of the apostles, multiple epistles and one eschatological writing.
False again. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, that his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,481
5,844
49
The Wild West
✟493,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
False again. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, that his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

This is correct. Rather, there is an allegation by some Restorationists @bbbbbbb that the Roman Catholic Church was created at Nicaea and at that council tried to among other things, depending on the particulat restorationist group, either suppress certain books like the apocryphal Gnostic Gospels, or else introduce the Deuterocanonical Gospels.

The Orthodox churches, Eastern and Oriental, and the Assyrian Church, agree with the timeline that @Valletta provides with the caveat that it is specific to how the canon was adopted in the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.

In the case of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the New Testament canon of St. Athanasius has remained unchanged, and was sent to Ethiopia, and also later to the other Oriental Orthodox Patriarchates (where, like the Shepherd of Hermas, there exist two extra-canonical works which are used for edification, the Didascalia, a book of church order similiar to the Didache used by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, and in the Armenian church, the possible third epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, whose authenticity is not verified, but like the probably spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans, it contains no heretical teaching.

The adoption by the Roman Church of the Athanasian canon helped motivated the other autocephalous churches to adopt the canon, with Constantinople following suit fairly swiftly, as far as we can tell, and only Antioch and the Catholicos of the East being the last hold outs, as evinced by the fact that the Peshitta follows the proposed 22 book canon which excludes the Apocalypse and certain other epistles, which the Syriac Orthodox later added in to their editions of the Peshitta, which were also used by the Maronite Catholics, from the translation by St. Thomas of Harqel in the 6th century.

With regards to the Old Testament, the canon of St. Athanasius was not adopted, but rather, most of the early churches wound up with a canon similiar to the 73 book Catholic canon, based on the books of the Septuagint, the sole exception being the Ethiopians, who benefitted from an independent set of translations that were more expansive. My understanding is that it is not just the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church that regard these as canonical, but also the sui juris Ethiopian Catholic Church, which is an Eastern Catholic Church similiar to the Coptic Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, et cetera. At any rate since these books have not proven controversial in ecumenical dialogue between the Ethiopians and the other Oriental Orthodox or between the Ethiopian Orthodox and the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and since one of them, 1 Enoch, is actually quoted in the Epistle of Jude, I am inclined to say that they ought to be regarded as the deuterocanon properly defined, if there even is a deuterocanon* and those books which the Roman Catholics call deuterocanonical should, on the basis of their importance to the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, which some argue in the case of Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, and so forth, exceeds that even of some books of the Pentateuch (namely the second half of Exodus, and Leviticus and Numbers, given their prominence in the Byzantine lectionary and the intense Christological prophecy they contain).

*The only other possible definition for a deuterocanon as I see it would consist of those pericopes of Scripture which are not read in any of the traditional lectionaries, or one could view this on a rite-specific basis, so for example, in the majority of churches which do not read the Apocalypse, also known as Revelation, in the lectionary, but recognize it as canonical, it could be said to be deuterocanonical, but in the Coptic Orthodox Church where it is read in its entirety as part of the services on Holy Saturday, it could be said to be protocanonical. I would also note the Greek Orthodox monks on Mount Athos read it at the same time the Copts do on the afternoon of Holy Saturday (Easter Even, the Paschal Vigil, the day before Pascha or Easter as we call it in English and a few other Western European languages; the Dutch call it Passen, interestingly), although apparently this reading is considered extra-liturgical, and I have not heard of any Eastern Orthodox parishes doing it (perhaps because the clergy, unaccustomed to monastic vigils, need to rest after the Vesperal Divine Liturgy that takes up the morning of Holy Saturday, which is very similiar to the old Vigil Mass in the Roman Rite before the ill-advised liturgical changes made by Pope Pius XII in 1955, which unfortunately are still very much with us even in many of those places where the Traditional Latin Mass is still celebrated.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
6,840
2,594
PA
✟278,708.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Council of Trent, additionally, certified the canon of their Bible
Wrong again

1431 Council of Basel

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
14,060
3,597
✟327,993.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No, it doesn't characterize them well. And certainly not objectively.
I don't even know where you're coming from on this but can only surmise that you're not being objective about it. I doubt even Luther or Calvin would agree with you. Plus, if you’re aligned with the Eastern Orthodox at all then you should be disagreeing with much of the Reformer's positions anyway.
Except they don't hold that the will isn't cooperative, I understand this was aimed at total depravity but it misses the mark because it doesn't directly attack total depravity but mischaracterizes what Luther and Calvin taught in setting the will as uncooperative in the act. The individual will cooperates in the act, but it is only able to do so by first being empowered by God. So rather than actually addressing something that the reformer's taught, it ends up missing entirely and anathematizing something no one taught.
You can phrase it however you want but a rose is a rose by any other name. If God so predisposes me that I now have no choice but to cooperate and therefore to will one way rather than the other, then my will is effectively uninvolved in my salvation. Related to this, the concept of double predestination is strictly about predeterminism-and that involves a very different God to begin with.

So, yes, it all begins with grace- and yet grace is resistible. So, the correct concept is that the will is not so completely dead or depraved that it cannot muster a yes or a no to God's calling. We can refuse to cooperate. Have you read Erasmus and Luther on this subject? That dialogue didn't happen in a vacuum either.
Neither of those quotes mean what you seem to think they mean, they are simply statements that there is no sin which Christ's death is not sufficient to cover. If there is no sin that could prevent Christ from initially accepting us, then there is no degree of sin that could lead to Him refusing us. But it is not because they believe that they are saved, it is because Christ's death is a completed offering lacking nothing. They are not saying that justifying faith is nothing but mental assent or belief in Christ's forgiveness of sins, but that justification is a gift offered by Christ that no man receives on the basis of his merit.
The concept is flawed to begin with. Of course Christ's death is sufficient for all sin even though certain comments in the bible seem to indicate otherwise-that there's no repentance possible for certain sins-and the early church actually believed that error at one time. But you have to understand that turning to God is also a turning away from sin and the world and that He gives us the grace, the power, the righteousness, to overcome sin when we're justified. But we remain free to also turn back away from that grace, from Him; we can return to the world, to the flesh, as we persist in grave or serious sin. And if we do so it's as if we've never repented and turned to God to begin with-we're back to the life of no grace, no Spirit, fallen all over again, disconnected from God. Simply believing that I'm forgiven is not the cure but rather a whole new change of heart and repentance again is called for. We certainly cannot depend on simply believing our sins are forgiven regardless of how we live our lives. That's why nothing even close to those words of Luther I quoted would ever come from the lips of a Catholic to begin with, who halfway understands the Catholic faith.
None of that says that the sins are forgiven because the person believes they are forgiven, because God offers His grace and forgiveness regardless of whether the person accepts it. But belief is necessary because God will not force His grace and forgiveness upon someone, and so all they must do to accept God's freely given grace is to accept it. It is 100% because God has acted, completely independent of how we respond.
God acts for all to respond correctly, to turn to Him. Not all do. In any case I think you need to read Luther more-and Calvin- and others. Bondage of the Will, Luther’s Small Catechism, Institutes, Augsburg Confession, Westminster Confession, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Then you’ll be better prepared to comment on this-and your comments will be different, incidentally.
Except they misrepresented their opponents, because they were defining what they must be teaching without input from the people they were aiming the anathemas at. It's not complicated or nefarious, sure, but it is polemic and political rather than illuminating.
No, they studied the concepts well before commenting, and they didn’t even name names anyway, just anathematized this concept or that one.
"Required?" This is exactly it, no one meets the requirements for entering heaven except Christ. Everyone who makes it, makes it as a beggar. We were born in sin, and we will die in sin. But we will be transformed to glory in an instant. No matter how much farther we are along than the worst sinner in the world, we are still infinitely far from meeting the bare minimum of God's requirements.
Yes, this is exactly it: required. Many of the reformed persuasion seem to think that the gospel is talking about a reprieve from the obligation for man to be righteous, but nothing is further from the truth. You reflect the Reformer’s position here, and some of their erroneous concepts that Trent objected to. The purpose of the gospel and the new covenant is not to simply save a portion of otherwise worthless sinful wretches and damn the rest, but rather to draw man into increasing righteousness, beginning with the act of faith which is to acknowledge God and His way as superior to man’s way. United with God now, He pours His righteousness into us. And that righteousness is intended to grow and blossom as the grace we’re given, the life of God in us now, is “invested”, embraced, cultivated, expressed. The reason there’s no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1) is because He saves us by bringing us into the fold, the family of God where we become slaves to righteousness that leads to eternal life rather than slaves to the sin that otherwise condemns us to death (Rom 6:15-23). The righteous requirement of the law can be met only in those who live by the Spirit (Rom 8:4).

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:12-14

And John agrees with this:
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” 1 John 3:6-9

God isn’t demanding perfect sinlessness in this life (although He'll ultimately achieve it in the next), only that we’re on that road to perfection and aren’t falling back into unrepented and persistent grave sin. And all of the following is just more evidence of Reformed fallacy in your thinking:

No matter how much farther we are along than the worst sinner in the world, we are still infinitely far from meeting the bare minimum of God's requirements. It is, and always will be, a gift freely offered by God and accepted by the faithful.
Read canons #18 and following. Oh, I forgot, Trent doesn't actually address any reformed notions.

God will determine how well we’ve done with the gifts we’ve been given, and we insult Him to say that He cannot help us to make the bare minimum requirements. He created no one to be a sinner after all, but sin is inevitable to the extent that were disunited from Him.

“Your sins are forgiven; now go, and sin no more.”

“With God all things are possible”:
but “Apart from Me you can do nothing.” Man was made to be with God. Being apart from God is fallen man’s whole problem.

Doing good doesn't bring us closer to meeting God's requirements, it puts us deeper into His debt.
Sure:
“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Rom 2:7

I know, like Luther, Paul didn’t really mean what he said.
As much as you seem to like that quote, it really doesn't say much or have much of any bearing on what we're discussing.
Actually, it has everything to do with it. It’s the heart of the gospel, that which man must do to be saved. Love is the full true definition of righteousness for man, which is why the greatest commandments are what they are. When we understand that statement, we understand the gospel. The new covenant is not a get-out-of-hell-free-card as long as we believe. Rather, it's the means to becoming the beings we were created to be so that hell is not our destiny. It's a journey, a process, and a very, very good one-a journey that begins with and is founded on faith.
And this is exactly where you seem to go wrong, because you seem to be teaching that those who enter heaven will deserve to go to heaven based on their personal merit. And you do so by lowering the standard of righteousness to whatever bar you personally can achieve, rather than elevating it to the perfection that is in Christ. Christ didn't say "be good enough." He said "be perfect."
Actually, Christ raised the bar, and He both models the standard and helps bring us nearer and nearer to meeting it ourselves. To put it another way, love is both a gift and a human choice, to embrace and express that gift. And then you’ll be judged on it. If we beat our chests continually, apparently proud of acknowledging our sinfulness, at some point God will say, “Alright! I know you’re a sinner- but I didn’t send My Son so that you would remain in your sins! I’ve given you everything to overcome them; now get busy!" The truth is, we're helpless to overcome sin on our own; were not helpless to overcome sin. The righteousness required to enter heaven is not solely a vicarious one, but a personal one that is a gift to us. From the catechism of the Catholic church on merit:

MERIT

"You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts."
Augustine

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.
Therese of Lisieux

Either way, perfection is to be the goal of all Christians. That's God's purpose with us, in fact-always has been-to produce something much better that He began with as we come to participate in His work of creation, having created His world in a "state of journeying to perfection", as it's taught.

It's all about union with God first of all. Misunderstanding of Scripture is what necessitated Trent-and caused the doctrinal errors that split the church.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,668
3,306
Minnesota
✟221,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Concerning Jerome, as you probably know, he rejected the deuterocanonical books as being part of the canon, based on linguistic issues (they were not written originally in Hebrew but came much later, appearing in the Septuagint). Subsequently, under pressure, he did translate them into Latin.
While there were many differences in opinion over the centuries when the Catholic Church was in the process of choosing the books of the Bible, once the Catholic Church officially decided Jerome, and for that matter all practicing Catholics, did not "reject" the deuterocanonical books. What Jerome did was create what might be today called a footnote, noting criticism from the main group of the Jews. We see such footnotes today in Catholic Bibles where differences with others are noted. In 402 A.D., which was just shortly after the canon was officially decided upon by the Catholic Church, Jerome wrote:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

The Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospels. Going along with what the Catholic Church officially teaches is not "pressure," you either accept it or go find or form a different religion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,642
977
United States
✟402,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally, I'm at peace with testing all things through the lens of Scripture and simply allowing God to be God.

Amen to that. One thing that does is make it hard to totally subscribe to one denomination - but you have to be OK with following Jesus, not man.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,668
3,306
Minnesota
✟221,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Amen to that. One thing that does is make it hard to totally subscribe to one denomination - but you have to be OK with following Jesus, not man.
Virtually every Christian thinks their beliefs are following Jesus, for Sola-Scriptura Christians there are so many differences because of so many interpretations of the Bible. There are differences in major beliefs and minor beliefs and thus so many Protestant denominations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,900
1,723
59
New England
✟516,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Virtually every Christian thinks their beliefs are following Jesus, for Sola-Scriptura Christians there are so many differences because of so many interpretations of the Bible. There are differences in major beliefs and minor beliefs and thus so many Protestant denominations.
Good day, Valletta

Seems that no matter the denomination this is nothing new

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures.
Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion
, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord.
Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.

In Him

Bill
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,566
6,335
North Carolina
✟284,021.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Virtually every Christian thinks their beliefs are following Jesus, for Sola-Scriptura Christians there are so many differences because of so many interpretations of the Bible. There are differences in major beliefs and minor beliefs and thus so many Protestant denominations.
What matters is who they are believing and trusting in for the remission of their sin and acceptance with God, and if they are in obedience to the NT word of God.
That is the core of all Protestantism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Markie Boy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jun 26, 2003
8,140
1,189
Visit site
✟258,543.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What matters is who they are believing and trusting in for the remission of their sin and acceptance with God, and if they are in obedience to the NT word of God.
That is the core of all Protestantism.
No it’s not. Virtually all Protestants dismiss the clear words of John 6 as fable. It was believed by the Church for 1500 years before the reformation then the reformers dropped it
Sexual morality was very important to Christian thought for 1900 years, but then the Protestants virtually all ignored our Lord’s words on marriage and adultery in 1930. They basically said that Jesus didn’t mean that you can’t look on a woman with lust. We have a piece of paper that says we are married, so we can do whatever we want, that’s why we conveniently dropped the book of Tobit from our canon silly. We know marriage and control of libido are too hard, so we will allow divorce and contraception, so what if we abandon 1900 years of Church teaching, we are modern and we took a vote.
Tell me again how Protestantism follows the clear teaching one the Bible
 
Upvote 0