The heading of chapter 2, "Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life", was not an assertion Augustine was proving, it was a Pelagian belief he was refuting:
Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law:"Then Christ died in vain." (Galatians 2:21) For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received,"If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath—in a word, from punishment—except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.
Woops. Better luck next time Dave.
I think it can reasonably be interpreted to have that interpretation, yes. There are different ways to look at the title. As usual Augustine is complex (what else is new?). I was interpreting it along the lines of "one doesn't have to necessarily hear about Christ and the gospel to be saved, and men can lead a righteous life without hearing it."
Either way, the passage does assert (unless I have missed some subtle Augustine rhetoric and refutation of opponents) exactly what I am arguing:
"Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh."
This is what the pope was talking about and what Pastor McCain appears to want to to deny. To be saved by Jesus and the gospel does not require hearing about them.
Of course faith is required; salvation is by Grace alone, not by works. That's exactly what Paul was talking about in Romans 2:12-16. And sacraments are necessary and are the normative means of obtaining grace for justification and salvation: but not absolutely, always, because the same St. Augustine believed in the baptism of desire.
All of the relevant Augustine texts must be harmonized together (or else it has to be conceded that he changed his position somewhere). Even if I grant that this passage does not support my case (I may be wrongly interpreting it; this is always possible with Augustine, because he is extremely subtle and complex), the other ones (including the one the pope cited) still provide more than enough evidence that Augustine believed people can possibly be saved without actually hearing the gospel (at least at some time in his life!). They are saved by faith nonetheless, and by the blood of Jesus. No Protestant false dichotomies need be applied.
Rev. McCain needs to show how the pope wrongly applied the text he used, and to also disprove the other ones I cited. That would be far better than the good pastor's deliberate effort to entirely remove any trace of St. Augustine from the pope's remarks, citing Augustine as if his words were the pope's and not his own, omitting ellipses, etc. At least one is openly dealing with the issues at hand, rather than cynically hiding them.
More fruit of the Protestant addiction to mediocrity:
- Poor scholarship / citation standards
- Blatant twisting of facts - quotes in this case - to make a pre-determined point (surely they would never do this with Scripture!)
- Rabid & culturally ingrained anti-Catholic sentiment
At least, as Dave A. has shown, this type of smear job is very easily refuted!
Blatant twisting of facts - quotes in this case - to make a pre-determined point (surely they would never do this with Scripture!)
Actually, many Protestants twist Scripture as well by citing prooftexts out of context and ignoring many other passages that contradict their interpretations. I wrote a whole book about it (The Catholic Verses).
I see that Rev. McCain has time to try and poke at you here, but apparently not to apologize for hacking up the Holy Father's words almost beyond recognition. Sigh.
"Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, . . . "
Dave,
This is exactly why Evangelicals accuse RC of sounding Pelagian and at least "Semi-Pelagian". The first comment was right. Augustine was arguing against Pelagianism, but you and the way you use Romans 2 sound Pelagian, and the modern RCC Catechism sounds Pelagian. At best it is contradiction or an internal inconsistency of your church's official statements.
You also quote Romans 2:6-16, but you are leaving out the larger context of this passage and the flow of thought that Paul is making, beginning in 1:16-18, that justification starts with faith and ends with faith, and 3:9-10 that all are under sin, and 3:9-23 that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and cannot come to God or seek God on their own.
". . . self-sufficient for fulfilling the law" ?? How can you interpret Augustine "any way you like", when you know, or should know, that he does not mean what you are interpreting him to mean. He is arguing against Pelagianism.
Rev. McCain may have quoted the Pope out of context, but the essence of what the Pope says and what you say and what the Catechism says about "those who have never heard" is a kind of Pelagianism. So the official statements say, "No, we believe we are saved by grace alone, sola gratia", but in these contexts you honestly seem to deny this, and call it "complicated and subtle." when it does seem to be a contradiction.
"Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, . . . "
This IF is what you breezed by and did not emphasize, so that Augustine's point was missed by you; and this is the main thing we have to see both in Augustine and Paul in Romans 2. It is a hypothetical -- If human beings were able to do that -- do good works perfectly, then yes, they would be saved and justified; but Paul's point (and Augustine's here) is that they cannot, they are unable apart from grace.
japhy was correct
I think the point the Pontiff and Dave are trying to drive home relates to the question of those who have not heard of Christ either in actuality or by not grasping what they have heard. Are these people necessarily condemned to hell
BTW: Rev. McCain: Still waiting for an explanation of the very poor quoting style. Is Augustine Pelagian and a prophet for the Antichrist?
I read all of Augustine's commentary on Psalm 137 both at the www.ccel.org and newadvent web-sites and there is nothing that even remotely resembles what the Pope and the article try to say that Augustine said. It honestly does not seem close.
"even if he lacks biblical faith" does indeed assert a false and unbiblical and anti-Biblical doctrine.
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, [who has a pure conscience apart from the grace of God?] and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent,
[Muslims and other Deists and mono-theists desire the transcendent; even Satan and demons believe that God is one, James 2:19 -- that is not enough to save] will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.
The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).
So, the Pope is wrong; and so far, I don't see Augustine teaching what you are ascribing to him as teaching.
Chapter 4 [IV.]—Free Grace.
This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. “Being justified,” says the apostle, “freely through His blood.”11401140 Rom. iii. 24. Whence they, who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. “For all have sinned”—whether in Adam or in themselves—“and come short of the glory of God.”11411141 Rom. iii. 23.
Augustine, On Nature and Grace, chapter 4
My emphasis in bold and italics.
Augustine seems to teach some kind of grace being put on the infant being baptized,
what is a hearing of the bath of regeneration. ?
". .. to hear, that bath of regeneration,"
youths or infants? unclear
But that is besides the point for now; here, he clearly says, that all are condemned even without hearing of Christ. This is just a chapter skip away from chapter 2 that Dave quoted. I skipped chapter 3 because of space of the blog; which was basically, that Adam and Eve choose by free will to sin and that all human nature after that became corrupt.
but Paul's point (and Augustine's here) is that they cannot, they are unable apart from grace.
No one is denying that; of course they cannot. We all believe in Grace Alone.
The issue under consideration is whether those who haven't heard the gospel can possibly be saved.
How do you explain the other passages I cited from Augustine? Does he believe that those who haven't heard about Christ can be saved or not?
To our Protestant friends:
A couple quick thoughts/questions if I may, on some fundamentals regarding the “gospel,” since the word is being tossed around here.
1. Protestantism claims to have ‘discovered’ or ‘found’ “the gospel,” “which the Papist had buried.” But just how, when and why did the unfortunate event happen? Was it B.A. or A. A. (Before Augustine or...)? 
http://books.google.com/books?q=...=&sa=N&
start=10
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
2.The very words of Christ himself seem to bear witness against this notion that the gospel could ever be “lost.”
“this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...t=1&
showtools=1
Notice that, between time the gospel is “preached in the whole world” and “the end,” there is there is not the slightest mention of any kind of an intervening “dark ages” into which the light of the gospel is plunged (“lost” / “buried”).
3. The gospel, it is true, must be "preached to every creature." And on this I think we all in agree. However, in addition to the gospel, the acts of the saints must also be told in their memory. (here, I’m thinking of a certain woman in particular). 
This is an area where Protestants, who boast of having the “pure” gospel, are universally silent. Why?
Augustine was being hypothetical; he was speaking at first on behalf of the Pelagians, and then replying against them. Paul, on the other hand, in Romans 2, is not being hypothetical.
But neither Augustine nor Paul is denying that God can work outside the ministry He has bestowed to the Church; rather, it is always by the grace of God and through faith in Jesus Christ that men are saved. God did not make His earlier covenants with the Gentiles, and yet He declared to Abraham that all nations would find blessing in him, not just the nation of Israel.
Romans 2:26 implies that the effects of grace can be "achieved" through extraordinary means. "Baptism by desire" and "baptism of blood" are extraordinary means by which God bestows the grace of baptism (ordinarily bestowed through the ministers of the Church) when those ministers are simply incapable of performing their obligation. This is why with God, all things are possible.
God can work in extraordinary means, but He demands that we work in the ordinary ways He has provided us. We sin gravely if we shirk our responsibilities to our fellow man (Christian or otherwise) and insist that "God will take care of it". God did not take care of the Garden of Eden, He told Adam to do so. God did not take care of the animals and Noah's family, He had Noah build the ark.
God chooses to work through us insofaras we are able.
God can work in extraordinary means, but He demands that we work in the ordinary ways He has provided us.
“We must work the works.” John 9:4
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...w=1&
showtools=1
Augustine was being hypothetical; he was speaking at first on behalf of the Pelagians, and then replying against them. Paul, on the other hand, in Romans 2, is not being hypothetical.
That could be, yes. I recognize that it is a legitimate possible interpretation of the passage, and may very well be the right one.
But neither Augustine nor Paul is denying that God can work outside the ministry He has bestowed to the Church
As this was my point and the one under primary consideration (this is the very thing that Rev. McCain objected to so much) then the two things can coexist together, if you are correct.
As usual, the original discussion has been cast to the wind. Rev. McCain shows no signs of being willing to defend his argument and actions. I don't blame him. What could he do, after all? He's been caught red-handed butchering a text in a most unsavory fashion.
The illustrious Pastor McCain fires another shot on his blog:
-------------
In fact, it is just, literally, business as usual: the same old anti-Gospel confession and teachings of Rome against which the Lutheran Confessions speak out so forcefully and reject and condemn. Why? Because the grace and glory of Christ is horribly obscured and set aside when people are led to place their hope, and find their comfort, in the good works of another human being. This is false and damning doctrine indeed. And, it just so happens I receive this mailing the day before the anniversary on which the Edict of Worms was issued, declaring Luther a heretic and public criminal, subject to the death penalty wherever he went and at any time. Yes, it's business as usual. But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, is still the pure, free, true Gospel, as usual, that provides the antidote to Rome's legalism and that inherent legalist inside each of us that would have us believe that we must "do something" in an effort to placate God and earn His favor. Christ has done it all, for us.
("Roman Catholic Business As Usual")
http://
cyberbrethren.typepad.com..._catholic_.html
Ben M: “We must work the works.” John 9:4
Jesus said that, and you're taking it out of context, if you're implying that it excludes God from taking action when we cannot. The quote in its context (John 9:1-5):
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
I don't know why Mr. Armstrong did not simply quote all of Rev. McCain's note, since it is so brief. I'm sure he would not want anyone to accuse him of selectively quoting.
A number of years ago somehow my name and home addresss made its way on to a Roman Catholic mailing list, and, as these things go, my name was passed to other RC charities, and now I regularly receive fund raising requests from various Roman Catholic charities. Today a particularly interesting one came in the mail. It is a stark reminder that for all the fine-sounding words we hear coming from certain corners in Romanism, when it comes down to it, it is, literally, "business" as usual--the business of selling masses, merits and works. The mailing I received came from the Marianist order of priests and contained a memorial card to use to give to a friend or loved one who has had a death in the family. The fund raising letter urges you to use the card, by sending in money to the order. In the center of the card is a "Memorial Remembrance." It states: "Perpetual Membership in the Marianist Spiritual Alliance has been conferred upon (fill in the blank) who will share forever in the Masses, Prayers, and Good Works of the Marianists. Requested by (fill in the blank). And it is signed "Father Pat" Father Patrick Tonry, SM, Spiritual Director." If that were not troubling enough, it is shocking that nowhere in the card is there any word of Christ and the Gospel. There is a picture of Jesus standing in clouds, but the card nowhere mentions a word about the Resurrection of Christ. It indicates simply that many people see death as an ending, but "religious people" know that death is just the beginning of eternal life. The inside cover of the memorial card states that paying for a loved one's "Perpetual Membership" in the Marianist Spiritual alliance will bring with it the guarantee of "One holy Mass offered each day of the year for those enrolled" and the promise that every Marianist Priest offers four masses every year for all the enrolled. It is very important for us to keep these things in mind whenever we are tempted to think that Rome really has taken a turn for the better. In fact, it is just, literally, business as usual: the same old anti-Gospel confession and teachings of Rome against which the Lutheran Confessions speak out so forcefully and reject and condemn. Why? Because the grace and glory of Christ is horribly obscured and set aside when people are led to place their hope, and find their comfort, in the good works of another human being. This is false and damning doctrine indeed. And, it just so happens I receive this mailing the day before the anniversary on which the Edict of Worms was issued, declaring Luther a heretic and public criminal, subject to the death penalty wherever he went and at any time. Yes, it's business as usual. But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, is still the pure, free, true Gospel, as usual, that provides the a
Thanks for the extra context, Raymond. Of course, all anyone had to do to get that was click on the URL I provided, but you saved them even that trouble.
The longer quote is just as stupid and ignorant as the shorter excerpt. Anyone acquainted with Catholic theology would know that, but sadly, those who aren't, do not, and make no attempt to rectify their insufficiencies.
Warm greetings, japhy:
Jesus said that, and you're taking it out of context, if you're implying that it excludes God from taking action when we cannot.
1. Of course Jesus said that. That was basically my point. It is Christ himself who speaks of an aspect of cooperation (not Pelagianism), of “working together” with him for the Kingdom of God.
After all, Jesus said that “we” must “work the works,” not “I” will “work the works.” And more:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, THE WORKS THAT I DO, HE SHALL DO ALSO; and GREATER WORKS than these shall HE do; because I go unto my Father.” (Still no Pelagianism here) http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...%22&
version=kjv
And they went forth, and preached everywhere, THE LORD WORKING WITH THEM, and confirming the word with signs following. Mark 16:20
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...v&
showtools=yes
For WE ARE LABORERS (sunergos) TOGETHER WITH GOD: 1 Corinthians 3:9
We then, as WORKERS TOGETHER (sunergeo) with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. 2 Corinthians 6:1 (Interestingly, Paul here connects the concepts of “working together” with grace).
Btw, it would be interesting to see if our Protestant friends can really justify the "Jesus did it all so we don't have to do anything" teaching from this Greek word study: http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...eng&
submit=Find
2. I avoiding the problem of context by providing a link.
3. Was I “implying that (John 9:4) excludes God from taking action when we cannot?” Absolutely not! Perish the thought! On the contrary, I firmly believe that God is always and everywhere intimately involved in the most minute aspects of his creation.
Finally, let me just add that yes, God is sovereign. But his sovereignty is in no way diminished by his SHARING of that sovereignty with his children, for whom he has an INFINITE LOVE.
“If we suffer, we shall also REIGN WITH (Sumbasileuo) him.” 2 Tim. 2:12 etc.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...821&
version=kjv
Ben, I apologize. I'm not a frequent enough reader/poster here to know who's who. I couldn't tell if you were quoting that say God does not work outside of the means He provided to us.
How do you explain the other passages I cited from Augustine?
See below
Does he believe that those who haven't heard about Christ can be saved or not?
No. No faith, no grace. “For it is by grace you have saved through faith . . . “ Ephesians 2:8-10
For someone to say people can be saved without faith in Christ is false doctrine; and it cuts one of the great nerves for evangelism, for if people can be saved without believeing in Christ, then going and preaching to them makes them more accountable. Your doctrines are false.
The other two passages (Episitle 43 and “On Baptism”) are both about schismatics and heretics like the Donatists and Novatians, etc. Nothing to do with those who have never heard. They were in rival and breakaway churches, they heard about Christ, but the church leadership disagreed over baptism, re-baptism, ordination, and what to do about those who handed over Scriptures during persecution or those that denied Christ or offered a salt offering before Caesar’s statue.
That makes all four passages as having nothing to do with those who have never heard the gospel. The comment on Psalm 137 had nothing to do with it; the passage from Nature and Grace had nothing to do with it; and these two either.
You and the RCC seems to claim “salvation by grace alone” in official doctrine; but it is hard to find in most popular literature; especially on that larger context that was provided of that card about the Marian dogmas and good works, etc.
Epistle 43 does not seem to teach anything close to what you and the Pope are saying. Epistle 43 is talking about heretics who have been warned; they were in the church and then left, or rebuked and then left. Later he mentions the Donatists, who were considered schismatic, which is really what the Greek word for “heresy” and “heretic” points to, those that have a party spirit and want to divide.
I don’t find it coming close to the subject of those who have never heard of Christ possibly being able to be saved.
The context provided by Raymond DiMato shows the emphasis of much of the RCC is still very similar to the "selling of indulgences" of the 16th Century.
The lack of any of the four passages from Augustine to be about what Benedict XVI was saying shows that he was teaching something that Augustine did not. Without Biblical faith means that they do not have saving grace. Saving grace produces Biblical faith in Jesus, and they cannot excercise faith without a hearing the gospel from a preacher. Augustine even mentions this at the beginning of the Confessions.
Also all of those passages on works and doing good works and being co-laborers with Christ have nothing to do with
1. doing meritorious works for salvation
2. works before faith or grace (as the Pelagians said humans could do); and which Pope Benedict XVI said, "they can be saved apart from faith in Christ" -- that is Pelagianism -- to say they have some sincerity or seeking or they are not proud, etc. -- that is what Pelagius claimed.
(On Baptism, Book V, Ch. 28, 39)
This passage also is not talking about those that have never heard, but the whole issue was Cyprian and baptism for heretics and schismatics who leave the church and/or were baptized in another Donatist or Novatian church and the question was should they be baptized again, etc. When he talks about “being in” or “without” he is referring to the fact that there could be those in the breakaway and schismatic churches, like the Donatists and Novatians ( who all have heard about Christ, they just rejected the ordination of pastors and leaders who had been ordained by others who gave into pressure from the Roman persecutions and handed over Scriptures and documents or signed a libel that they had sacrificed to the Roman pagan gods. The debate in N. Africa was over ordination, baptism, and re-baptism. It had nothing to do with “what about those who’ve never heard?”.
Augustine says it is possible that some of those schismatics/heretics/Donatists could repent of pride and stay in those breakaway churches and die and still be in heart more believers or “catholic”
“. . . through which all who are in heart without, . . . “
than some who are physically still in the catholic church, but in their heart they are not true believers, like the Tares in Jesus’ parable.
“it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body”
So, overall,
even though you have faulted him for his editing and cutting and pasting,
and leaving out the Pope's references to Augustine (but on examination Augustine does not teach anything about what you and the Pope claim he does)
and maybe Rev. McCain's tone is a little harsh
still,
Rev. McCain was right. RCC claims to teach "Grace alone", but clouds and obscures it in everyday popular teaching and contradicts grace alone by its understanding of ex opera operato and the sacraments and infant baptism; and thinking that a person who has no faith in Christ can be saved, because they never heard.
Ben, I apologize. I'm not a frequent enough reader/poster here to know who's who. I couldn't tell if you were quoting that say God does not work outside of the means He provided to us.
No need to apologize, japhy. I don't always make my point as effectively as I should.
Thanks for your thoughts as always, Ken! And as usual, we will have to agree to disagree.
Hello to Ken Temple,
Wow, Ken! It really sounds like something struck a major nerve! But be careful, you don't want to blow a gasket, or worse, actually end up being able to out huff n' puff me in my occasional fits!
Here, read this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/
...ealthsmarts.xml
Then take a few deeep, relaxing breaths.
But more seriously, even though I think you are over reacting a 'bit', still, I respect your passion. Nothing like a little fire in the belly now and then, especially in light of Rev. 3:16. Sure beats the lukewarm crowd, don’t you think?
Warmest regards,
I find it very interesting that Rev. McCain has "left the building" while others come to his defense. I'm still waiting for a cogent response from him on the topic of this post... However, as I've read Rev. McCain's postings the spirit of Christian charity seems to escape him...at least when dealing with Catholics. *sigh*
Do I detect a pattern here?:
1. Hays can't defend his own remarks, and would never lower and defile himself to set foot in this pagan environment for a second. So others defend him.
2. McCain can't defend himself, so others do so.
3. Swan can't defend himself, so others do so.
4. When I critique White, he never responds, while chiding others for not refuting every jot and tittle of his arguments.
It's just a quirk I have: my mind detects certain patterns at times . . . maybe it's just me.
Ben,
I am relaxed. Thanks for the reminders.
My main concern is that Dave (and the Pope) have mis-represented Augustine; and this idea that someone who has never heard can be saved apart from faith in Christ -- that is a false doctrine.
Romans 10:9-15
Acts 4:12
John 3:18 ". . . he who has not believed is condemned already . . . "
John 14:6
Dave,
So, do you concede that I got Augustine right?
“It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that “all are forced into sin,” as if they were unwilling, “by the necessity of their flesh;” but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils,—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil,—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “everything which is not of faith is sin.” Rom. 14:23. And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. Hab. ii. 4. Romans 1:17 And it pertains to faith to believe on Christ. And no man can believe on Christ—that is, come to Him—unless it be given to him. [ John 6:65, see also Phil. 1:29, John 3:27] No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above.”
Augustine
Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, 1:7
Notice how Romans 14:23 – faith, and Romans 1:17 (and Hab. 2:4) (and this was the verse that awakened Luther’s heart on justification by faith alone) is combined with John 6:65, God’s sovereignty in election. No wonder Augustine influenced Luther and Calvin so much.
So Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, etc. all said that “free will” means that we freely choose according to the nature of our will, or desires. If it is sinful, and all are (John 8:34 “He who commits sin is the slave of sin”), then all unregenerate people have an evil will and it’s freedom is the freedom to sin and do what is wants to and no external force is compelling it.
Only when a person is born again by the Spirit of God is the will set free to choose to not sin. John 8:31-36; Romans 6:6-7, 6:20, 8:2. And this gift of the Spirit is only for those who put their faith in Christ. John 7:37-39.
And they must hear the message, then repent of their sin and believe. Romans 10:13-15
And as many as were appointed to eternal life, believed. Acts 13:48 Some from all nations believe in Christ because they were first chosen by God and drawn by God. John 6:44, 65
So, the Pope was wrong and you were wrong to say that those who have never heard have a sincere will or a good will and seek after God (Romans 3:9-23 – “no one seeks for God”) or lack of pride; all unregenerate people are prideful. The Apostle Paul and Augustine condemn this false teaching.
Augustine again:
“A person’s free will, indeed, avails for nothing except to sin, if he does not know the way of truth. And even after his duty and his true goal begin to become known to him, he still faiths to do his duty, or to set about it, or to live rightly, unless he also takes delight in it and feels a love for it. Now, in order to win our affections to what is right, God’s love is shed abroad in our hearts,” not through the free will which arises from ourselves, but “through the Spirit Who is given to us.” Romans 5:5
On the Spirit and the Letter, 5
I stand by my original (and Pope Benedict XVI's) interpretation of Augustine regarding possible salvation of those who have never heard. I don't try to force him into a box of my own making, but let him speak for himself.
Standing by your original post --
Again, that is why the RCC seems like a contradiction when it says, "We believe in Sola Gratia" (Grace Alone) and some aspects of "Faith Alone" (explained by Jimmy Akin; but also teach that grace comes through sacraments, and ex opera operato formulas, meritorious good works, and that sinners can
have sincerity and good wills
not distorted by pride
have a seeking heart
-- this is why you sound Pelagian sometimes, and Semi-pelagian many times; even though you deny it.
Mother Teresa even seems to have said this about the Hindus -- she did not really try to convert them to Christ, but was compassionate toward their physical pains and illnesses and poverty; but did not preach Christ to them. I will get the references later.
While she worked with the poor, Mother Teresa was adamant that any type of evangelism was unnecessary. In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says:
"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men -- simply better -- we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life -- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation." (Pages 81-82)
With such a statement we can only be left believing that she was more than a Catholic, but was a Universalist, believing essentially that all religion leads to the same God. Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs. In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, "These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?" She replied candidly, "We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods."
A Simple Path is a compilation of the teachings and meditations of Mother Teresa. Labeled as a "unique spiritual guide" we would expect this book to contain unique insights into Scripture and into the Christian life by someone who is perceived as being a Christian spiritual giant. Instead, in the foreword we read,
"The Christian way has always been to love God and ones neighbor as oneself. Yet Mother Teresa has, perhaps with the influence of the East, distilled six steps to creating peace in ourselves and others that can be taken by anyone -- even someone of no religious beliefs or of a religious background other than Christian -- with no insult to beliefs or practices. This is why, when reading Mother Teresa's words and those of her community, we may, if we choose, replace the references to Jesus with references to other godheads or symbols of divinity"
The six steps to peace taught by Mother Teresa are silence, prayer, faith, love, service, and peace. For anyone who was unsure of what they believed, she suggested starting with small acts of love towards others. She includes three pages of sample prayers and prefaces them by saying that if you are not a Christian you could replace the name "Jesus" with "God." (Page 35). Through the entire book there is never a hint that she relies on Christ alone for her salvation. Rather we read things like, "I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic" (Page 31).
From, “The Myth of Mother Teresa” by Tim Challies
http://www.challies.com/archives...ives/
000034.php
Those quotes by Mother Teresa are damning false doctrine. This is why it seems there is lots of contradiction and unBiblical and anti-Biblical practice and teaching in the RCC.
Her (Mother Teresa) whole life was a contradiction to these clear Scriptures:
John 3:18
John 14:6
Acts 4:12
Romans 10:9-15
It's because your Protestant dichotomous, "either/or" mentality cannot comprehend how things can be at the same time both (primarily) God's and (secondarily) our actions.
This is a thoroughly biblical belief (e.g., 1 Cor 3:8-9, 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1; Eph 2:10; Phil 1:6, 2:12-13; 2 Pet 1:10).
But since you haven't grasped that, you have to unbiblically collapse the categories and "options" into:
1) God does it (therefore man isn't and can't be doing it AT ALL).
2) Man does it (therefore God hasn't done it, and it necessarily becomes Pelagianism and works salvation).
Catholics say, OTOH:
"God enables it and works His work in the person who receives the divine grace and enabling power. The person freely receives and cooperates with this grace, as a "fellow laborer" [Paul] with God. He no more gets any credit for that in the end than a prisoner gets by cooperating with the governor's pardon and walking out of the prison."
Dave,
When you list McCain, Hayes, Swan, and White, and say,
"They cannot defend themselves, So others do"
That is not a logical statement. You seem to be using "so" in the sense of "therefore", as if one causes the other -- and the first part, that they "cannot" defend themselves is just your opinion.
I just merely enjoy interacting on some issues sometimes when I see something I can contribute toward and give the opposing view.
It is true that I agree with most (maybe 99% on content) of what Swan and White write; McCain was right in essence, but a little harsh. I have not had time to read much of Hayes materials.
They just don't want to (apparently) spend the time with you and the back and forth and endlessness of it, when they have long and many papers that cover most of hte issues. (As you do from your viewpoint)
There is no "therefore' or "so" connection.
It is merely one person (or more than one) out there in the blogosphere willing to comment and explore and write in your comment blog on those issues. There is not logical causal connection that "because this, therefore that".
If I had my own blog, and all the time it takes to write, I would probably stop commenting so much here, also. I think honestly that they just don't have time to spend with you beyond what they have already done. It is not that they cannot, but rather they just choose not to be drawn into the "black hole" and endlessness of the nature of these debates.
I enjoy this because the nature of it helps me study and think and motivates me to do research further. I want to learn, but I admit this is taking up lots of time!
“This is a thoroughly biblical belief (e.g., 1 Cor 3:8-9, 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1; Eph 2:10; Phil 1:6, 2:12-13; 2 Pet 1:10).”
All of these are written to believers and about believers, so do not address the issues of the need for those who have never heard to hear about Christ, repent and believe, and that those that do believe, it is God awakens their dead souls by His working of grace on the inside them when they hear the gospel and repent and believe. The only verse that includes salvation or initial regeneration is I Cor. 15:10. Phil. 1:6 does in the sense of “God who began the work”, but the main point there is that God will finish the work He started. Does not say we “chose” God at the beginning while we were dead in sin. John 15:16 “you did not choose Me, but I choose you.” We only choose God because He first chose us and worked that grace in our hearts first.
Reformed Protestants and other Protestants also agree that all of those verses teach that people make real choices and choose and cooperate after they have been touched or drawn first by God on the inside. Most of those verses are dealing with choices we make after initial regeneration. Reformed Evangelicals agree that Sanctification is a cooperation. (synergistic) Calvinistic Evangelicals disagree with other Protestants on the initial drawing or regeneration of God; that is monergistic -- God works on heart of stone and removes it and gives the elect person a heart of flesh (soft, open, pliable) (Ezekiel 36:26) and immediately, upon hearing the gospel, repents and believes. "faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of Christ" Romans 10:17
I Cor. 3:8-9 – talking about evangelism, church planting, and teaching and discipleship among the Corinthians. He is not talking about salvation here in Apollos or Paul’s choices to work and do good things and cooperate with God in ministry of evangelizing, and teaching the Corinthian church.
I Cor. 15:10
He is giving credit for God’s internal work of grace – “I labored more than all of them”, yes, obviously outwardly we “do” things, make choices, act, work; but, “yet not I, but the grace of God with me.” He is saying I did not come up with this at the beginning, God had to awaken me first from being dead and lost in sin. He made me alive, then I chose to believe and act and do and work.
2 Cor. 6:1 – talking about his preaching and urging the Corinthians to receive the grace of God. His working here is not for salvation or cooperating to get salvation; rather it is cooperating in the ministry of preaching and urging his audience to repent and believe and grow.
Ephesians 2:10 – those good works are the results of salvation, grace and faith in verses 8-9. In verses 1-3, we and all were and are dead. Cannot choose, cannot belive, cannot repent unless the grace of God makes us alive. Verses 4-5 show that the grace that “makes us alive” regenerates and that God does it without our cooperation on the inside. On second after that drawing or like a battery jump start, we are able to cooperate with the grace of God to grow in sanctification.
Phil. 1:6 God began the work, the humans did not. Paul is declaring his confidence in God, and giving credit to God who does the work on the inside and completes it to the final perseverance. This verse speaks more in favor of the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints and the eternal security of God’s elect, more than the RCC doctrines that one who has real salvation can loose it.
Nothing to do with the point of sinner’s being able to respond to God before they are saved.
Phil. 2:12-13
He is talking to people already saved and he is urging them to obey God in his absence; and he encourages them to keep on obeying and growing and teaching them that it is God’s Spirit and work within them to work on the wills, causing them to act and do good and obey. This is also about growing in sanctification, not about the initial point of justification or saving grace of conversion. We agree that here the will is synergistic, working and cooperating with God, because this is sanctification, not justification or regeneration.
2 Peter 1:10
Same thing, keep persevering, keep growing, bearing fruit, choose, cooperate, and in that way, you confirm and make your calling and election sure.
So, overall, the only verse in your list that involves the initial point of regeneration, conversion, faith and repentance, or justification is I Cor. 15:10; and there Paul says “not I”, meaning it was not sourced in him within himself to get things started.
So, none of those verses prove your point at all. You have to show that a dead sinner, a slave in sin is able to choose inside of himself without the grace of God, which is what the Pope said and you are saying, that those who never hear of Christ and do not have faith in Christ, have
An unprideful heart
A seeking spirit and heart
Sincerity, a good will able to choose
No faith in Christ
Seems to me verses about salvation are either/or - Acts 4:12 – no other name by which we must be saved – either trust Christ or you cannot be saved.
John 14:6 “no one comes to the Father except through Me.” Either trust Me as the only mediator, the only way to salvation, the only way to have life, the only truth, the only way to get to the Father, or no way to salvation, no life, no heaven, and no finding of truth. Prettty either/or to me
John 3:18 – the one who does not believe is condemned already – either one believes or does not and is already condemned.
These statements from the Pope and/or statements that he claims that Augustine made (but you have yet to show that he really wrote that – the www.ccel.org and new advent at Augustine on Psalm 137 do not say these things at all.
"Now, if they strive to do these tasks with a pure conscience,
Here he is claiming that dead sinners have a pure conscience!
this is on condition, however, that while living in Babylon, they do not thirst for ambition, short-lived magnificence or vexing arrogance....
All sinners are prideful, so this cannot be.
on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance."
They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption...
No one seeks for God.
You and the Pope are wrong and lost the argument. Slam dunk.
1) God does it (therefore man isn't and can't be doing it AT ALL).
No one can; no one is able to come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44
The Lord opened Lydias heart so that, or in order that she could respond to the things that Paul was saying. Acts 16:14
As many as were appointed to eternal life, believed. Acts 13:48
A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven." John 3:27
He who commits sin is the slave of sin." John 8:34
Luther's Bondage of the will
these are very either/or; and only after initial awakening, making alive, but immediately faith, cooperation, choices and good works begin.
We only choose God because He first chose us and worked that grace in our hearts first.
Thanks for the kindergarten soteriological advice. What would we ignorant Pelagian Catholics do without you, Ken?
So, overall, the only verse in your list that involves the initial point of regeneration, conversion, faith and repentance, or justification
Mine was an argument not solely about the "initial" point, but an analogical one regarding God and man working together, so much ado about nothing.
I pointed out that your presuppositional error is what causes you to overlook all of this scriptural evidence. In this area, you are more bound and shackled to and blinded by false traditions of men than what the Bible in its totality reveals to us.
I pointed out that your presuppositional error is what causes you to overlook all of this scriptural evidence. In this area, you are more bound and shackled to and blinded by false traditions of men than what the Bible in its totality reveals to us.
Dave Armstrong
How did I overlook anything when I went through every verse you supplied, and noted the context ?
I also supplied you with the verses that actually DO deal with the issue of the initial point of regeneration or awakening or repentance and faith when someone hears the gospel presented to them.
Yours is the traditions of man, mine is the proper Biblical exegesis and attention to context and grammar and the author's intended meaning.
And by what authority do you make this claim?
Thanks for the kindergarten soteriological advice. What would we ignorant Pelagian Catholics do without you, Ken?
For Mother Teresa to say what she said about Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists, etc. is INDEED kindergarten; and failing first grade at that.
For the Pope to think that dead sinners in tribal societies or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists to have pure consciences, seeking hearts after the true God, and no pride is INDEED kindergarten!
I am not denying that some seek the true God out when they follow general revelation to monotheism, but that is not enough to save, unless they have a gospel preacher, and unless God awakens the heart and gives them ears to hear, (Rom. 1:19-21, Psalm 19:1, Acts 17:27); but that is still not the "righteous seeking" that only God can awaken the heart for. "no one seeks after God" "no one is righteous, no not one." Romans 3:9-23
By what authority do I make this claim?
The Bible and the normal rules of grammar, context, words, and the authors intended meaning.
Don't need any pope or magisterium or Middle Ages analogical 4th layer of possilby intepretation
to give me a feeling of security that because I can think and read, that somehow that is prideful;
nor do I need the allegorical method of goofy Origen and Clement of Alexandria and in the areas of sex and marriage in Ambrose and Augustine's view of the song of Solomon because they were ashamed of sex within marriage. Mind you, Origen, Clement ofAlexandria, Ambrose and especially Augustine were great on many things; but goofy on some things, Origen goofy on more, and Clement of A. goofy on a lot.
Because the Word of God is written down and written down for us to read, hear, understand, and believe and obey, it follows inherently that there is an inherent authority given to us to interpret it according to the normal rules of grammar and communication.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, ". . . have you not read what God has spoken to you . . . ? Matthew 22:31
by the way, that was a great point made by James White many times over in his debates with RCs.
The elders and teachers and pastors help us, (I Timothy 3, Titus 1, Ephesians 4:11) in the local church, but they are not infallible.
The Bible and the normal rules of grammar, context, words, and the authors intended meaning.
As interpreted by whom?
“In the last thousand years God has given to no bishop such great gifts as he has given to me.” – Martin Luther, Table Talk, vol. 54:430
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
Notice how Romans 14:23 – faith, and Romans 1:17 (and Hab. 2:4) (and this was the verse that awakened Luther’s heart on justification by faith alone) is combined with John 6:65, God’s sovereignty in election.
Ken, I am writing this “so that you might know the exact truth about the things you (would) have been taught (ORALLY) (Luke 1:4)” by the CHURCH had the reformers not, well, “reformed.”
http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...727&
version=nas
(Katecheo - our word, Catechism – related to Katacheo).
Luther he had correctly “discovered” the true meaning of a certain passage of Paul. http://thumbsnap.com/v/FaMsfaVL.jpg
But this is not how the Christian faith works. We do not, and indeed can not, discover or teach ourselves the faith! It is a GIFT. Period! It is not something one “discovers” through good works (presumably you believe bible study is a good work) leading to an “awakened” heart. It is a GIFT! http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...eng&
submit=Find
Search the scriptures! I think you will quickly see that Luther’s claim of having “discovered” the gospel through his own efforts utterly contradicts the normative way in which the gospel is “heard” and “received.” Rest assured, you wont find a SINGLE NT PASSAGE in which an individual is seen instructing himself in the faith. That, my friend, would be the exclusive province of heretics. The faith is a GIFT!
Why do Protestants believe themselves exempt from being orally taught? Even the holy apostles had to be orally taught! They didn’t just sit down with a bible and figure out what to believe. On the contrary, they were GIVEN the most detailed instructions - ORALLY (and for that matter, VISUALLY) - in the faith by Christ himself. THEN, AND ONLY THEN were they qualified TO TEACH OTHERS (orally) about the faith. And this they proceeded to do.
Following the pattern set down by Christ himself (AND NEVER REVOKED!), the apostles set about the business of HANDING ON THAT GIFTWHICH THEY THEMSELVES HAD RECEIVED. On this point we can truly say that “Jesus did it all for us.” So there is nothing to try to figure out, Ken. There is nothing you, me, the pope or anyone else can do to teach himself the faith. WE ALL MUST BE PREACHED TO, AND INSTRUCTED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN OURSELVES!
Take a look at these passages, Ken. They show the faith being transmitted to others ONLY by being “received” (NOT by being “DISCOVERED”). http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...eng&
submit=Find
Ken,
As an observer of this dialogue, that has inevitably strayed from its original intent, I just wanted to point out some things that I don't think you've realized. (I’ve capitalized below for emphasis).
You:
"Yours is the traditions of man, MINE IS THE PROPER BIBLICAL EXEGESIS and attention to context and grammar and the author's intended meaning."
Dave A.:
"And by what authority do you make this claim?"
You:
"By what authority do I make this claim?"
"THE BIBLE and the normal rules of grammar, context, words, and THE AUTHOR’S INTENDED MEANING."
"DON’T NEED ANY POPE OR MAGISTERUM or Middle Ages analogical 4th layer of possibly interpretation…"
"Because the Word of God is written down and written down for us to read, hear, understand, and believe and obey, it FOLLOWS INHERENTLY THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT AUTHORITY GIVEN TO US TO INTERPRET IT according to the normal rules of grammar and communication."
"The elders and teachers and pastors help us, (I Timothy 3, Titus 1, Ephesians 4:11) in the local church, but THEY ARE NOT INFALLIBLE."
I’m not sure if you’ve realized this but, if you personally have the ability to read, understand, authoritatively and correctly interpret the author’s intended meaning then you have just announced yourself as pope. You have essentially proclaimed yourself to be infallible in the area of biblical exegesis. However, three sentences later you say that pastors, elders, and teachers are there to help but are NOT INFALLIBLE—which basically means that they could be wrong on some issues. If we extend that to you and every other well meaning Bible-only Christian then your same standard applies to you—you are not infallible either. So which is it?
Two questions:
If those appointed above you (pastors, elders, etc.) are not infallible how can you say that, “MINE IS THE PROPER BIBLICAL EXEGESIS?” And if you acquiesce that you are not infallible then your previous statement is an exaggeration at best and supreme arrogance at it’s worst. So Ken, yes or no, if you are not infallible could your interpretation be wrong?
Second, why should I (we) believe your interpretation? According to your theology everyone has the right to read the Bible for themselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit interpret as the feel the spirit leads them. Correct? If so, then how can you say that your interpretation is better than Pope Benedict, Augustine, Dave, or even me? You can’t have it both ways unless of course you start your own and yet another sect. The best you can say is that you don’t agree with their interpretations, but you cannot say that they are wrong according to Protestant [Bible-only] theology.
I look forward to your reply.
Ben M. wrote:
Rest assured, you wont find a SINGLE NT PASSAGE in which an individual is seen instructing himself in the faith. That, my friend, would be the exclusive province of heretics. The faith is a GIFT!
[That is not the claim that we or any other normal Evangelical Protestant makes. Of course, the first time I read Luke and every time, I am also learning from the Luke and the things that were orally taught to Theophilus. No problem. Luther had his teachers, including Staupitz, who actually taught him many great things and directed him to study the text of Romans and Galatians in Greek more closely. Luther read Augustine and Bernard, and others and so your point to me is a non-point; because we also read and hear and learn from others. There is nothing in what I said that implies that it is “just me and Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the woods with my Bible”. Obviously you just don't understand the position at all, or you would not make this claim -- everyone learns from someone else. Of course we have to hear the word from oral teachers (or if there are none, one has to pick up a NT and read about the gospel-- this was my whole point on why the Pope was wrong about those who've never heard -- Romans 10:9-15 clearly teaches that one must believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and Him as Lord (God, Deity, and Boss); but that that knowledge or faith is not possible unless the local church sends people to preach the gospel to those who have not heard yet.]
Why do Protestants believe themselves exempt from being orally taught?
Where did you get that goofy idea?
Even the holy apostles had to be orally taught!
Of course.
They didn’t just sit down with a bible and figure out what to believe.
Looks like Ken missed my last question:
Ken: The Bible and the normal rules of grammar, context, words, and the authors intended meaning.
[this is his authority for what he believes]
I asked, then:
"As interpreted by whom?"
Matthew elaborated upon the difficulties. But almost always, when the discussion gets to this deeper level of analysis, it breaks down (or the Protestant will try to switch topics and attack Catholic tenets -- real or imagined), because the Protestant sees that he cannot defend his own premises.
Watch very closely what happens now . . . a non-response or a non sequitur reply speaks a thousand words . . .
They didn’t just sit down with a bible and figure out what to believe.
Duh. The NT had not been written yet. Duh. They had the OT that they could read; and they had Jesus who taught them orally. Duh.
On the contrary, they were GIVEN the most detailed instructions - ORALLY (and for that matter, VISUALLY) - in the faith by Christ himself. THEN, AND ONLY THEN were they qualified TO TEACH OTHERS (orally) about the faith. And this they proceeded to do.
Duh. No problem whatsoever to anything I have written. Once “the faith” was written down, and the apostles died, it is our responsibility to read it, and listen to the teachers, but to test what they are saying with attention to the text. Acts 17:11 We are encouraged by the Scriptures by the example of the Bereans to check the text for ourselves to see if these things are so. Your Popes and dogmas through the centuries started getting the text wrong. In fact, there was no Pope as “bishop of bishop” arguable until at least Leo I and then even Gregory the Great said that “no one should call himself Bishop of Bishops” in his rebuke of John of Constantinople. Cyprian around 250-258 at the council of Carthage said the same thing against Stephen, the bishop of Rome. There was much good interpretations– the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, the resurrection, the Trinity, etc. But when prayers to dead saints started being added, and indulgences, and baptismal regeneration, and transubstantiation and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and Sinlessness and Bodily Assumption and co-mediatrix and the Pope as “Bishop of Bishops” and ex opera operato sacerdotal powers to the priests, and the priesthood for that matter, these are all additions and corruptions of the plain text.
Matthew:
then you have just announced yourself as pope.
Absolutely not. It just does not logically follow. I am an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist denomination and I also have an M.Div. and studied Greek and Hebrew and theology, etc., but I am not a pope, and I could be wrong about many things. But I can think and read and reason to a degree. Your church’s ways of dealing with clear texts like Matthew 1:25, 16:13-18, Luke 1:28, Exodus 20 (don’t make idols or bow down to them – by lighting candles and praying to them and bowing down in front of them (as John Paul 2 did in front of a large statue of Mary), seems to really contradict that command, even you say, “we don’t worship Mary”. (I know how you explain it away.) etc. are just goofy!
If those appointed above you (pastors, elders, etc.) are not infallible how can you say that, “MINE IS THE PROPER BIBLICAL EXEGESIS?”
By itself, that sounds arrogant, but in context, in the debate with Dave A., I showed all the texts he uses and stuck to the context as intended by the author; but Dave calls his method of interpretation “analogical” (using those texts as an analogy to prove another point). But when that is not intended by the author, you and he missed the whole point of the author. My point was this, “in comparison to your interpretation, my interpretation seems to take into account the context, the paragraph, the subject matter, and the normal rules of grammar and communication more than yours does. And I have to add, because you guys seem to think “thinking is arrogant” or “being confident is arrogant”; “I humbly submit this.”
This seems to be the trick or linchpin of all RCC apologetics, to appeal to doubt over a passage, because to be confident of an interpretation is counted by you guys as ‘arrogant”. I reject that. I think that we can be humble and confident; and rejecting statues and prayers to Mary and papal authority is not arrogant, but sincerely looking at the revelation given to us and saying, “this is how I honestly see it.” And “your arguments and qualifications over condign and congruent merit, distinctions between dulia, latria and hyper-dulia just seem like lots of obfuscation and trickery and bad exegesis. “
And if you acquiesce that you are not infallible
True, I am NOT infallible.
then your previous statement is an exaggeration
By itself, it seems that way, but if you had included all the context, it is not.
at best and supreme arrogance at it’s worst.
So why is the Papal claim to infallibility not arrogance, when it was not around in history, not in the Bible, and took until 1870 to announce it. Maybe started as an idea in 1200-1400s ?? Why is Boniface VIII’s statement not arrogant: “I proclaim that every living creature must submit to the Roman Pontif for salvation.” ?? that is a clear contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, and John 20:30-31.
Cutting the sentence like that and making it seem like I say that all the time about every single verse in the Bible, yes, that would seem true. But that is not what I said. I only said that given the verses on “what about those who have never heard?” and looking at John 3:18, John 14:6, Acts 4;13, and Romans 10:9-15, I felt that my interpretation is the better one that follows rules of grammar and language and context and the author’s intended meaning, whereas your Pope and your catechism has ignored all those clear verses and rules of interpretation. I also showed how Dave skewed Augustine, especially the passage from On Nature and Grace and even japhy got it right, who is also RC.
So Ken, yes or no, if you are not infallible could your interpretation be wrong?
Of course, theoretically. But I don’t think it is. Your methods of skepticism make it impossible for anyone to be sure about anything! You destroy all thinking, because any amount of thinking for oneself (based on evidence and normal rules of grammar and communication) is considered arrogant by you. You have someone like your Magisterium Papal system that, I guess, to you guys, gives you some kind of emotional comfort (maybe because the ideas of transubstantiation and infallibility and ex opera operato sacerdotal power are so incredulous?) that is the bottom line of what my friend Rod Bennett (author of Four Witnesses) said to me years ago after he became RC from evangelicalism. He felt weak in himself and he said, “who is going to tell me the right interpretation?” I just don’t have that struggle when I look at the Scriptures and compare them to the issues that divide Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. That uncertainty is understandable on issues like one’s view of the Millennium, and the Tribulation and Anti-Christ, but not on any of the issues you and your church want us to believe and accept that they were part of the original deposit.
"As interpreted by whom?"
Of course I and all human beings are interpreters. Every time someone communicates or writes or listens, they are automatically interpreting. You even wrote a paper, "the Responsiblity of the Catholic to interpret the Bible, etc." and your point, after it is all said and done, is that the Catholic must just submit to those few things that are deemed infallible dogmas that cannot be questioned anymore; but he is free within certain bountries to interpret the Bible for himself on some issues, like Predestination -- one can be a Thomist Catholic (even Jansenist, right?) or one can be a Molinist (Middle Knowledge) Catholic. Bottom line, one has shoot his brains on those 8-11 issues that the Pope says, "the buck stops here."
Matthew elaborated upon the difficulties.
And I answered them.
But almost always, when the discussion gets to this deeper level of analysis, it breaks down (or the Protestant will try to switch topics and attack Catholic tenets -- real or imagined),
It is necessary to mention them by way of illustration and argumentation. Why are you afraid of me mentioning them? This proves my point. You want to keep everything to the philosophical and epistemological and theoretical level and avoid your "tenets", so that if a person will just kill his mind on the arrogance and epistemological issue, then once one surrenders to that, then submitting to those incredulous tenets that contradict the Bible and reason can be sneaked in under the radar screen; all in the name of humility and godly submission to authority and church unity.
because the Protestant sees that he cannot defend his own premises.
Not at all, I can and did defend them, in my opinion.
Watch very closely what happens now . . . a non-response
I responded to the subject and stayed on subject.
or a non sequitur reply speaks a thousand words
IMHO, my reply was good and logical and on subject and followed reason and logic; and exposes your underlying premises of attempting to be for humility, and unity and submission to authority, but it is not, as was shown.
It is interesting that no one has dared to comment on Mother Teresa's own words, that teach Universalism, and Pelagianism.
:::: http://myfinancecalculator.info/...-
interview.html investment banking interview investment banking interview [URL=http://myfinancecalculator.info/investment-
banking-interview.html]investment banking interview[/URL] myfinancecalculator.info/investment-banking-
interview.html [link=http://myfinancecalculator.info/investment-
banking-interview.html]investment banking interview[/link] *
I didn't know you were an ordained minister, Ken, or had an M.Div. That's cool. So, yet another Baptist pastor that I am privileged and honored to call a friend . . . That's why you're so sharp (though too often dead wrong and exasperating LOL).
ME: "As interpreted by whom?"
KEN: Of course I and all human beings are interpreters. Every time someone communicates or writes or listens, they are automatically interpreting.
Exactly. So you're saying the interpretation in this instance strictly comes from yourself? That gets back to the authority question again. Unless you have an authoritative interpretive / theological tradition backing you up, there is no more reason to accept the validity of your interpretation (or mine), than the man in the moon's. So do you not appeal to any authority outside of yourself?
KEN: I just don’t have that struggle when I look at the Scriptures and compare them to the issues that divide Protestantism from Roman Catholicism.
You may not, but plenty of your Protestant comrades do, which is why they can't figure out what is true doctrine in many many areas of theology (baptism being the classic example that I always cite).
KEN: You want to keep everything to the philosophical and epistemological and theoretical level and avoid your "tenets",
In this instance, yes, because it is absolutely crucial that we all examine our first premises. I find that Protestants rarely do that. They assume their own premises without proof (biblical or otherwise). But once they are scrutinized, they are shown to be groundless and arbitrary. You are no different. I would maintain that any Protestant position reduces to bald, unproven axioms that have no more reason to be accepted than anything else.
The Catholic position, however, rests on the Bible, and reasonable tradition that is passed down and has a concrete reality and authority: itself grounded in the Bible.
Because I am examining YOUR fallacious first premises, it is irrelevant for you to switch the topic over to mine (which I have defended many times and can assuredly defend anytime, anywhere). This is your time to show how your first premises on authority are more reasonable and biblical than ours. I say you can't do it. And, like all Protestants, that is why you are squirming and resorting to desperate measures in reply at this very moment.
Again, it always comes down to this with Protestants, if one can get them to consider the epistemological / authority question long enough to actually get somewhere.
KEN: so that if a person will just kill his mind on the arrogance and epistemological issue, then once one surrenders to that, then submitting to those incredulous tenets that contradict the Bible and reason can be sneaked in under the radar screen; all in the name of humility and godly submission to authority and church unity.
There you go again with the contra-Catholic rants, trying to evade your own insuperable difficulties. I'm
(cont.)
. . . not trying to murder anyone's mind, much less my own. To the contrary, I am demanding that you use YOUR mind and not push it down, in how you deal with this supremely important issue of Christian authority. I'm the last person in the world who wants to kill anyone's mind or urge them on to blind faith. I've never believed any of that irrational rotgut.
KEN: I responded to the subject and stayed on subject.
Great. Then surely you can do so now, without mentioning any Catholic beliefs, while we are examining yours. We've only just gotten started, believe me.
Hi Ken, thanks for response.
I wrote: Why do Protestants believe themselves exempt from being orally taught?
Your responded: Where did you get that goofy idea?
Well Ken, unless I’m missing something here, I got that “goofy idea” from Protestants, beginning with Luther, who claimed he had “discovered” the gospel through ‘reading’ not through “hearing” (‘orally’).
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
http://www.google.com/search?as_...ts=&
safe=images
.
So I find it rather odd is that you apparently see nothing wrong with Luther being exempt from the NORMATIVE way of “hearing” the gospel, yet you object strenuously when the Pope dares to suggest that certain groups of people may also be exempt from this same normative!!!!
Please consider: Whenever the ‘gospel’ is mentioned in scripture, it is always in the context of preaching, not reading.
Search results for: “READ AND GOSPEL” - 0 hits.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...all&
language=en
“READING AND GOSPEL” - 0 hits.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/
O...READ+AND+GOSPEL
The only possible ‘exception’ is Galatians 3:8 http://www.biblestudytools.net/C...apter=3&
verse=8
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed."
But even here, you’ll notice that only a technical aspect of the gospel is mentioned – JUSTIFICATION of “the heathen through faith.” Explicit reference to the concept of SALVATION by/through FAITH in THE PERSON OF CHRIST is absent.
So “salvation” and “justification” are but two ASPECTS of the gospel message.
And since all this talk about the 'gospel' iis related to the Pope's comments on the salvation of non-Christians, it might be helpful to have a clearer understanding of just what the gospel is.This article by Jimmy Akin may help toward that end: http://www.cin.org/users/james/f...iles/
gospel.htm
Ken, I was wondering...have you read St. Francis de Sales' "The Catholic Controversy" which posits some answers to the points you have raised concerning Luther or Calvin's mandate to "reform" the Church. It may help you understand the Catholic position or at least provide a foil against which you can test your arguments against. If nothing else, you may enjoy seeing a more ancient version of someone like Dave Armstrong who loves to use the Scripture to prove the teachings of the Catholic Church and to rebut Protestant teachings.
As for Mother Theresa, I have heard others, including some Catholics, comment similarly to some of the things that you raise in your comments. I must say I have not spent alot of time reviewing her writings or her speeches but I suspect that some of these things may have been taken out of context or were said to give lip service to certain laws that countries like India, Pakistan and others in that region have against proselytizing (sp ?) which include criminal sanctions for such conduct. And if one is to judge Mother Theresa, I think that the real proof is in the pudding so to speak. Her order of nuns preached the Gospel message through their works of charity what they legally could not preach openly. Despite those restrictive laws, look at all of the people she and the nuns of her order have brought to Christianity through their faith in action.
In "The Everlasting Man," Chesterson talks about the truths of other religions ~because we all share the same Creator, all religions seek to know Him. Non-Christian religions fail not because they aren't true; it is because they are not true enough. They all see only small segment or a glimpse of the Truth that we Christians have the pleasure of knowing more completely or at least as completely as men can know the Truth.
Your friend in Christ (at least according to Mk. 9:40) ~Paul H.
BTW Dave, I hope you don't mind the comparison...your style of writing is very similar to deSales'.
~Paul H.
I'm humbled and honored to be mentioned on the same page as this great saint. I love that book!
Ken,
Regarding Mother Theresa I will only use a quote from St. Francis of Assisi:
"Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary use words"
Matthew,
Did you read what Mother Teresa said?
Francis said, "if necessary, use words" -- according to the Bible, it is necessary -- "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved . . . " Acts 11:14
Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, athesists, are lost and need to hear the gospel or read it -- and orally explained to them, just as Ben was pointing out.
I am the one arguing for evangelical preaching and evangelism.
She did good works, but if those good works were only to relieve human suffering, and she tried to make Hindus better Hindus and Muslims better Muslims and Buddhists better Buddhists, then she sent then to hell with healthier bodies and less physical pain, only to encounter the eternal pain of the fires where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:48
Paul Hoffer,
Thanks for the friendly interaction. I have not read Francis de Sale's books, nor G. K. Chesterton; although I have heard lots about them and seen quotes from them time to time.
I understand what you are saying about Mother Teresa -- but the apostles would not have operated that way -- see Acts chapters 3, 4, and 5 -- "we cannot stop preaching about Jesus", "we must obey God rather than man", "they rejoiced because they had been counted worthy to suffer for His name's sake."
I also lived in a Muslim country, and we took things slow, and with wisdom, but we always sought to take every opportunity to move toward the demands of the gospel with individuals. And I would never say "they are OK by some sort of universal transcendent that they are seeking, they just don't know the right words or details to call the true God by His proper name and all the details of revelation about Jesus, etc." That is why the RCC seems to officially say they agree with Sola Gratia at Trent, but then at Vatican II and beyond and the new catechism, teach Pelagianism and Universalism about those who've never heard.
The quotes by Mother Teresa are from her own book. whether they were taken out of context -- it remains for someone to prove it by citing evidence.
Mother Teresa honestly seems to have been a universalist and a Pelagian. Good works are filthy rags without the righteousness of Christ.
Ben M.
The reason I call your idea "goofy" that Protestants are against oral teaching, is because, as I cited, Luther had his oral teachers, namely Staupitz, and he was very close to being an evangelical, only given the historical context, he was a man of his times, and staying in the RCC.
After the period of inscripturation, when the gospels and acts etc. talk about preaching and oral ins