My Beefs With The Rcc

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Jul 13 2004, 08:53 PM'] Even More Importantly, not everything needs to be in Scriptures. Read the last line of John bro. [/quote]
So what things did John consider important enough to write about:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30)

Ahha, everything he wrote he did so that we might know God. I guess that solves any question on the necessity of extrabiblical data for salvation. Doesn't it?

[Brother Adam]

No, it doesn't. And such a quick-witted assumption at the topic reveals a lack of understanding at the depth of the Christian heritage. When a person finds something that logically makes sense such as your assumption that the second part of John 20:30 makes sense to you to unwaveringly declare Sole Scriptura, it is a lack of logical reasoning.

No where does John 20:30 say "and thus you need nothing more than the scriptural canon which does not exist as of yet from which to interpert your doctrine to be saved, and so then all those who attempt to academically interpert the scriptures will do so with the aid of the Holy Spirit and be given a guarentee of freedom from any error"

It simply is a written account for readers to observe testimony concerning the Messiah. The Word of God is not limited to the recorded written canon of scriptures.

Consider also looking at it this way from those whom John was writing:

John records his testimony as someone would present a piece of evidence in a courthouse. For Jews who are considering the message of the Messiah, it serves as a strong witness to so that "they might believe in Jesus". However, it does not negate a need for the Church or a leading authority within the Church (of which even protestants accept in the Pastorate and Deaconate)

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Jul 13 2004, 09:04 PM'] According to you, when Jesus died He paid for future sins as well as past sins, that once you ask Jesus into your heart, you can commit any type of sin, even adultery and fornication and you are still saved because you are 'Once Saved Always Saved'

So why is it then that [b]AFTER[/b] Christs death, Jesus still saw it necessary to give the Apostles the power to forgive Sins at Pentecost? What Sins are they going to forgive if Jesus' death took care of it all? [/quote]
Which power are you talking about that the Apostles had? There are numerous things you could be referring to, you need to narrow it down for a response-

[quote]This is why in James 5:16 it clearly says: 'Confess your sins to one another.'[/quote]
And the purpose of confessing to one another is clearly for salvific purposes to you? James talks a lot about how things are supposed to be after salvation and in Chapter 5:16 also begins with a 'Therefore' which explains [i]why[/i] they are to confess. The why part is so that the one who is sick will be healed. And, if you finish the verse it says 'and pray for one another, that you may be healed." It is extremely difficult to pray for one another if you have not confessed your sins. This passage indicates because of the why and also from the remainder of the sentence that the confessing is so we can pray for each other to God so that one who is need can be restored.

[quote]And 2 Cor 5:17-20 says that Jesus has ' given us the ministry of reconciliation'[/quote]
I love this verse. Lets go in full here -- He first says "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation". So from that we can see Christ had a ministry, and then passed it on to us. In the following verses it clarifies. "Christ God was reconciling the world to himself", ok, we know His part now. Now what is our part of this 'ministry of reconciliation'? "we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us". Ahha! We are the mediators of the new covenant and it has been passed to us to mediate it (not priests) and from that we are to tell the world of the gospel through which all men might be saved. As Christ's ambassadors we tell the world of his message and bring reconciliation to all men. That is why in 1 Corinthians 15:34 "For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame."

[quote]And again in James 5:13-15 says that the prayers of the Priests forgives sins (prayer said after one confesses sins)[/quote]
Yours says priests? Oh yeah, different translation . No matter, let us look at the passage once again. It says this in verse 15 in particular. "And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick". Now according to the theology of the new testament. Are unbelievers 'sick' or are they 'dead'? They are always referred to as dead obviously and so if anything this passage reinforces that the person in contention is in fact saved while in his sin.

[quote]You prots like to think that the Church teachs that the Priests themselves hold power and are God like..so, so wrong. Just as God used the Apostles to do maricles, healings, baptism (which washes away sins), God also uses their successors in the same manner. God works THROUGH His representatives on earth..the Bishops and Priests to carry out His work.[/quote]
Good summary of your position. Thank you for including that, it actually helps if someone reading this doesn't understand it. I will conclude by saying that doing a simple look at the verses you began with there doesn't seem to be any problem with my own position. I have a question for you to respond to as well that I've never been able to figure out. Since seals in the New Testament time period were considered signs of ownership and only the one who sealed it could break that seal, what do those who believe in the limitation of God's grace do with Ephesians 1:13-14 when it says "were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it..."? That seems unrefutable in my opinion. I'm sure there are ways around it though, I just don't know of any yet.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 13 2004, 09:43 PM'] No, it doesn't. And such a quick-witted assumption at the topic reveals a lack of understanding at the depth of the Christian heritage. When a person finds something that logically makes sense such as your assumption that the second part of John 20:30 makes sense to you to unwaveringly declare Sole Scriptura, it is a lack of logical reasoning. [/quote]
I would challenge that and say to look at the end, the [i]very[/i] end of John 20:30. It says that "and ... by believing you may have life in his name." If I made that bold of a claim I would assume that I had covered enough of that material in my work to [i]fulfill[/i] that claim. It is odd for someone to say something like "I wrote this letter to you so you would know how to build a house, and by building the house live in it" and then someone respond "It doesn't say it has *all* the instructions! Obviously you need all the help-guides at the hardware store as well." Obviously that person is mistaken and the plain meaning is that the content necessary is contained within.

[quote]Nowhere does John 20:30 say "and thus you need nothing more than the scriptural canon which does not exist as of yet from which to interpert your doctrine to be saved, and so then all those who attempt to academically interpert the scriptures will do so with the aid of the Holy Spirit and be given a guarentee of freedom from any error"[/quote]
No it doesn't say that. I wouldn't presume to add that either.

[Circle_Master]

and by the way, where can I put a post up to complain to dUSt.. and don't say PM's because apparently I've been banned from them in my absence once again...

[Brother Adam]

And yet it is on this basis for which you add to your foundation for sola scriptura.

To your illustration for the house: I can also as easily quote James and tell you it is not by faith alone that you are justified. Would you side with James to what he says? Or with Luther who believed James letter is one of straw and does not belong in the Bible?

Can John's gospel give the basics of the necessities for a familial relationship with Christ? Yes. Does it say that relationship is based on a Calvinist view of Soteriology? No. Your house building manual can contain necessary information, but if someone does not know what a control valve or a VAV box is, they are likely to get lost along the way. Thus the Church stands to be a teacher and interpreter of the Holy Scriptures - such as the general will lead you in building a house.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:11 PM'] and by the way, where can I put a post up to complain to dUSt.. and don't say PM's because apparently I've been banned from them in my absence once again... [/quote]
Try emailing him.

[Winchester]

Icci,

You did not actually answer my question. I know your example, I'm trying to deal with your assertion; I believe it's so fundamentally flawed that your example is unworthy of address.

[Winchester]

Circle-master,

I don't think you're anti-Catholic in any antagonistic sense.

I do think you're slightly paranoid, but I guess we are out to get you, it's understandable your development of such pathos.

I bet you're a Tool fan, aren't you?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jul 13 2004, 08:27 PM'] So what things did John consider important enough to write about:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30)

Ahha, everything he wrote he did so that we might know God.  I guess that solves any question on the necessity of extrabiblical data for salvation.  Doesn't it? [/quote]
Your interpretation would hold, but only if John had said, ". . . but these [i]alone[/i] are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." [John 20:31] The fact that the Church canonized the fourfold Gospel, clearly shows that John alone isn't enough, nor did anyone prior to the 16th century hold that scripture contained everything necessary for salvation. Clearly, it contains what is needed, but it was never intended as an exhaustive explanation of the mystery of faith. Scripture, tradition, and the Church are all necessary.

The [i]sola scriptura[/i] doctrine is a human creation dating from the 16th century. Clearly, the canon of scripture itself is an extra-biblical tradition of the Church, because nothing in scripture delineates what is or is not an inspired book. Scripture does not say that only the four Gospels are inspired; instead, the Church, the living Body of Christ, has determined that. That is why Catholics have always held that scripture, tradition, and the Church herself, are all necessary elements of the [i]regula fidei[/i].

Why is the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible, while the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is excluded? Because, by God's most wise design, the Church determined that Matthew is inspired and Thomas is not. Thus, Protestants except a canon that is not a part of the Biblical revelation, but which is instead a representation of the [i]rule of faith[/i] of the Catholic Church. [i]Sola scriptura[/i] can only hold if one can prove, from scripture alone, that the 27 books of the New Testament, and only those books, are inspired and are enumerated within scripture itself, and this is clearly not the case. The canon of scripture, which is vital to knowing what has been revealed by God, and thus is vital to man's salvation, is not itself contained in scripture.

In the case of both Judaism and Christianity oral tradition preceded the written text, and in the case of Judaism this was true for hundreds of years, while in the case of Christianity, it was only about a generation or two before elements of the Church's tradition were consigned to writing. Scripture does not negate the need for tradition, rather it presupposes its necessity. It is only through the living tradition of the Church that one can interpret scripture in a way that is coherent and continuous. That's why the early Fathers, men like St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, et al., held that only those in the Church had a right to interpret scripture. Heretics abused the scriptures, because they twisted them into saying things contrary to the tradition of the Church, a tradition of faith that had been handed down through the Apostolic Churches.

So, if I met a person who asked me why I believe in the Gospel, I would say, along with St. Augustine, that "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." [St. Agustine, "Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental," [u]The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers[/u], First Series, Volume 4, Page 131] And this is a great gift of God's grace.

Therefore, scripture alone is not enough, for one must have the living tradition of the Church, along with the Church's divinely instituted Magisterium, in order to know and understand correctly all that has been revealed by God. Scripture was inspired by God and written by men who, in the case of the New Testament, were incorporated into the Church has members of Christ, and therefore it is the Church's book, given to the Church by God. Sacred scripture was not written within a vacuum, nor can it be properly understood in one.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Circle_Master]

Note, I am not a Calvinist if Calvinist means one who follows the teachings of Calvin. If following the 5 points, I would be closest to a 4 point Calvinist. I reject limited atonement. I am also in the process of reevaluating several of the other points and some of them I am shaky on already. Therefore, do not pretend I am a calvinist.

Of course I realize that there is further clarification to be gleaned from the other Gospels and that is why we have 4 of them as well. The point is however that John claims to have the message of eternal life within it. Therefore I accept that and understand that what additional data may exist will not contradict what is in John and will not contain a facet of the Gospel which is not supported through John. That's a lot of negatives, let me try again. Therefore I accept and understand that more data about salvation exists than is in John. Taking John in perspective however allows me to realize that what is required for salvation is completely included in John's gospel and what the other gospels do is clarify and also teach other things. They do not add to the gospel necessary information, nor do any of the epistles. What is necessary is contained within John.

[Brother Adam]

You then evelate John higher than all other scripture?

[Circle_Master]

No of course not. When studying Scripture the first thing to realize is you must not rip things out of context. How this applies is since John is written so that we might believe and have eternal life, you use John first to see what is involved with believing. If something is written for a different purpose you don't systematically rip that apart to redefine a section written for that specific purpose.

[Brother Adam]

I find it hard to believe that this one verse implies all other scripture must be evaluated by it regarding soteriology, but don't fault you for seeing it that way.

Myself, prefer to view scripture as a whole, viewing its whole message first, then slowly breaking it down to it's parts keeping the whole in mind. Context is extremely important, which is why I am thankful for Catholic theology- evaluating it with an open mind to learn it correctly, I have found what I have read to be "in context" moreso than any other teachings. It really does beg the question - can we as induviduals really expect to always capture all that is involved with the context of a passage of scripture. I've seen whole books dedicated to just a verse or two by various authors - both claiming context in their desire for truth and both coming to different conclusions.

Perhaps more of a philosophical question than a doctrinal question.

[Paladin D]

I don't think [b]Circle_Master[/b] as an anti-Catholic.