In defense of Cruciform; Traditions of Men

[Lon]

So, then, no actual proof whatsoever.

:nono: Not when you, yourself, demonstrate clearly, that it is one-sided, not clear, not meaningful to conversation. It would have to necessarily pass the 'Protestant' test to be a form of good and efficient communication and, as you clearly correct and recorrect my understanding of your loaded sentence, you prove it isn't efficient at all. Sorry, you are wrong. I don't know what world you live in where you could possibly see that as 'no proof whatsoever.' It is clearly wrong/false. Clearly.

A conclusion drawn from the demonstrable facts of ecclesiastical history. Your knee-jerk sectarian dismissal of such facts changes nothing.

NOR makes it a fact. It is your private interpretation.

No

Yes

(Just trying to get nonsense out of the way. You can 'assert' all day long. It only works on a Catholic. I don't have to listen, especially to what is unsubstantiated or unsubstantiatable.

If you're referring to the Coptic Orthodox churches, note that they are part of the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, which has been a distinct body only since the schism following the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, when it took a different position on Christology from that of the Roman Catholic Church. So much for your fabricated history of Christ's Church.

I fabricated nothing. If you want to make up stuff to character assassinate me, I'll have no part of you and will only reject your church with you as representative. I have no problem with that 451 date, persay, it is rather how affiliated they were with the RC and whether they view, themselves, as part of Rome or not. You could have said "mistaken" but you purposefully said "fabricated" and with no grounds to do so, it was snaky and underhanded, at best.

You do if you wish to claim any binding apostolic authority whatsoever for your denomination's beliefs, doctrines, and practices. Otherwise, they're nothing more than mere human opinions---mere traditions of men. This is the entire point of my oft-repeated observation that every Protestant interpretive claim is merely an appeal to the opinions of his chosen man-made non-Catholic (Protestant) sect. It goes to the central issue of doctrinal authority and ecclesiology.

And? Your own church claims I am a brother at a distance. You, with this assertion, are against your own church. All on you. By yourself. All by yourself.

You do? Exactly how much of this, then, do you affirm and follow?

Follow/believe. What we believe about God? Nearly the same. Salvation? I'm monergistic so that leaves a good deal of that in contention, though a reordering is the main concern: First regeneration Then works progress from a new nature.

Sacraments? Yes, but not in communion with Rome. You've said EO is in essential agreement on 99.9 if not 100% (or it might have been another, but I think it was you).
Regardless, the disagreement of the 10% or so (not hung up on that exact percentage, if you want me to produce a more accurate percent, I may do it one day, but I come up about 90% on the few tests I've taken.

Again, this is merely a parroting of the particular ecclesiology that you have been fed by your chosen Southern Baptist denomination, a man-made sect which did not even exist prior to its invention by men in 1845. Thus, your preferred non-Catholic sect clearly cannot claim to be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and therefore cannot claim any binding doctrinal authority whatsoever for its merely human interpretations and opinions. This is the entire point I've been trying to make on this forum for years now, and which the anti-Catholics here have been mindlessly dodging, distorting, and dismissing for just as long.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

:nono: Not 'again' and not at all true. I KNOW how I came to Christ. I ALSO know what the RC believes about those who are in Christ, but not in fellowship with the RC. You can 'assert' all day long, but that's just you asserting. The Pope doesn't cast this dispersion like you do. At least not that I'm aware. It very much looks like "Cruciform's private interpretation."

 

[Cruciform]

I have offered you proof. Remempost 518...

Now state exactly how your already-answered Post #518 supposedly proves that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Still waiting.

Scripture is not sufficient for you.

Nor was it for Paul and the rest of the apostles. :nono:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

...the original Church was corrupted by the RCC

Post your proof.

 

[Cruciform]

Not when you, yourself, demonstrate clearly, that it is one-sided, not clear, not meaningful to conversation.

Your transparent excuse for failing to provide any actual proof whatsoever for your anti-Catholic truth-claims is noted.

NOR makes it a fact. It is your private interpretation.

The objectively demonstrable presence of the Catholic Church throughout every Christian century from this one back to the Apostolic Era is a fact of ecclesiastical history. The same certainly cannot be said---much less demonstrated---of your preferred recently-invented, man-made Southern Baptist sect, which did not exist prior to 1845 (!).

I fabricated nothing.

Your chosen man-made Protestant sect, however, did, and then passed it on to you---with your permission, of course.

You could have said "mistaken" but you purposefully said "fabricated" and with no grounds to do so, it was snaky and underhanded, at best.

Again, I did not say that you had fabricated anything, and certainly not knowingly or deliberately. It is your ecclesiology---which you have derived from your preferred man-made Southern Baptist sect---which is fabricated.

Your own church claims I am a brother at a distance. You, with this assertion, are against your own church. All on you. By yourself. All by yourself.

Nonsense. Nothing in my comments in any way denies or contradicts the Church's teachings, or implies that you are not a Christian. You're all over the place today. I highly recommend an excellent book written by a former Baptist Bible scholar who ultimately became Catholic:

Stephen K. Ray, CROSSING THE TIBER: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church (Ignatius Press, 1997)​

Perhaps you could engage in a careful and thorough reading of this text in order to familiarize yourself with the issues between our two traditions, so that your questions and comments are better-informed and a bit more accurate.

You can 'assert' all day long, but that's just you asserting.

Merely your assertion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[brewmama]

This is mythology and Greek Orthodox views that hold the LXX Greek even higher than the Hebrew.

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seem strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be “targumed” into the vernacular Aramaen. Can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have arisen to address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis? Src: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 1, pp.129, 130; by Alfred Edersheim​

(1) The letter of Aristeas [which purports to give a history of the LXX –SMR] is mere fabrication (Kahle called it propaganda), and there is no hard historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 285-150 B.C.

(2) The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.

(3) No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 150 A.D.

(4) Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen produced the first "Septuagints" – that none existed before their works.

(5) The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product.

(6) After 1900 years of searching, archaeology has failed to produce a single piece of papyrus written in Greek before c.150 A.D. that any writer of the New Testament used for a "quotation".

The nearest thing to an Old Testament Greek Bible found by anyone is the Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. This piece of papyrus is dated 150 B.C. (questionable date) which is fifty to one hundred years later than the writing of the so-called original Septuagint.

When Jesus said that not “a jot or tittle” would be removed from the Law He could only be referring to the Hebrew, for the "Jot" is the Hebrew word "Yodh", the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the smallest letter. Tittle refers to the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. Since the Greek OT (LXX) does not have jots and tittles He was not referring to this inferior translation which has a historical background and timetable that are very suspect.

Hence a false impression has been created, and the student is left deceived as though the extant LXX prepared for general use is something other than it is. Indeed, what real significance can rightly be attached to these few thousand references when one weighs them against the vast bulk of the c.430,000 words (Apocrypha excluded) contained in the Greek Old Testament? These two uncial MSS also contain Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith etc. Thus, it must be recognized that the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost 90 percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was written more than 250 years after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that!

See also: http://standardbearers.net/uploads/...cal_Analysis_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf

AMR

Kahle has been discredited, and is certainly in the minority. I'm not surprised people here still believe him

 

[Traditio]

This business about Augustine is not going to move the discussion forward. I provided a response to one of Cruciform's links to another wherein Augustine was appealed to, as did you, about how he would not have come to faith but for the church. Romanists have this tendency to read back into the statements of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) a certain meaning that one wants to see, regardless of whether that perceived meaning can stand the test of historical examination and scrutiny. Further, in my wide-ranging rebuttal of numerous claims made that Protestants have no answer to Romanist one-liners about various topics I included adequate context and scrutiny to demonstrate that Augustine is not bowing to the existing church at Rome, but rather to the authority of the church as the means of the salvation of all persons from the preaching of the word of God. You argued for consideration of Augustine's other words elsewhere, and in my rejoinder I noted the contrary that supported my original postion. All of which is to say that getting into a "he said this here, but later he says this elsewhere" is not going to prevail in support of any position you may have.

AMR, my response basically comes down to this: what you are doing is cherry picking lines from St. Augustine completely isolated from his general thought, from the contexts in which he wrote them, etc. I easily could cite lines from Plato which make him sound like anything from an Academic Skeptic to a Stoic...provided, of course, that I rob those lines of all context.

When situated in their proper contexts and understood properly? Not so much.

Augustine Belongs to The Church Militant - Not Rome Alone

There was a point in history when Rome viewed Augustine’s theology as cardinal, only rejecting it, indeed anathematizing it, at Trent for semi-Pelagianism.

You insist on repeating this point. What in particular do you have in mind? What was declared at the council? Was St. Augustine or a work of his specifically named? Or is it perhaps simply more likely that you (or the author that you likely are basing yourself on) simply have misunderstood either the council or St. Augustine?

I find it incredibly dubious that St. Augustine's theology would have been condemned as semi-Pelagian: 1. because St. Thomas Aquinas based himself heavily on St. Augustine and 2. because I've read St. Augustine writing on Romans, and I'm pretty sure that he's not a semi-Pelagian. He's quite clear that God elects persons apart from any prior merit on their part. He's very clear that salvation is primarily a divine work.

Sacramentally, both to baptism and to communion, Augustine was a Lutheran, definitely not a Romanist.

What is your evidence? A plain reading of the Confessions tells otherwise. Again, at the beginning of the De Trinitate, he refers to himself as a high priest. What do high priests do?

But once they try to offer specific examples, where such claims are represented by a particular case, their arguments are usually toppled by overt anachronistic readings of the ECF. Romanists do this very thing when they appeal to Augustine's use of "Rome" and "Church" to mean the Rome and its Church they now follow, all the while refusing to submit to the plain facts of history.

Again, you insist on repeating this points, while completely overlooking the points that I've repeatedly made, i.e., that regardless of whatever imagined differences you wish to stress between St. Augustine and the Catholic Church, these points are undeniable:

1. St. Augustine acknowledged the authority of the Catholic bishops and their unbroken succession, and it is on this unbroken succession that he based, epistemologically, his faith in the gospel.

2. St. Augustine believed in the Catholic mass.

St. Augustine would easily have seen Catholic and Orthodox practice and belief as more or less in continuity with that of the Church of his time. Your church? Not so much.

The early days of the particular church in Rome was organized as a presbytery until the middle to later part of the second century. The prebytery consisted of a plurality of elders or presbyters, the latter term being synonymous with bishops.

Do you have any compelling evidence that I should not read "presbyter," not as elder, but as "priest"? Because I just as easily could reply that the early Church clearly recognized priests and bishops who were responsible 1. for the administration of the sacraments and 2. for the imparting of doctrine to the faithful.

Roman Catholicism does not exist as such until the fourth century, at the earliest, really until Leo I (440-461). Episcopacy, yes, but not Roman Catholicism. It was Damasus I (reigned 366–84 AD), who first claimed the title pope (from the Latin, papa, “father”) for the bishop of Rome, and there was nothing remotely like the papacy as we know it until Gregory I (reigned 590–604), following the fall of the Empire in the West (476 AD). In fact, Gregory I was offended by the label universal pope, noting a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest. Sadly history tells us that Gregory I, the last good pope (HT: Calvin), was ignored as Leo I and Galsius led the way to later bishops of Rome laying claim to this proud address.

Why do you insist on arguing about the papacy? I haven't been talking about the papacy. I've been quite clear that, to my mind, the papacy is irrelevant to the current discussion. It would be relevant if you were an Eastern Orthodox, but you're not. :idunno:

By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses.

I'm sure that the gnostics, the manicheans, etc. would have been delighted to speak in just the same way as you are now. :idunno:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Now state exactly how your already-answered Post #518 supposedly proves that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Still waiting.

Simple. You never responded to the points I raised. Your "response" consisted of you avoiding the whole post by claiming I don't have the right to question RCC doctrine. In short, your failure to respond to that list in any meaningful way proves my point.

Nor was it for Paul and the rest of the apostles. :nono:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

neither you nor anybody in your church is Paul or any of the other apostles.

 

[Cruciform]

Simple. You never responded to the points I raised. Your "response" consisted of you avoiding the whole post by claiming I don't have the right to question RCC doctrine. In short, your failure to respond to that list in any meaningful way proves my point.

Again: State exactly how your already-answered Post #518 supposedly proves that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Nothing in your latest post in any way answers that question. Try again.

neither you nor anybody in your church is Paul or any of the other apostles.

If Scripture was not considered sufficient by Paul and the other apostles---and it certainly wasn't---why should lay believers consider it so?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Lon]

I wish to note, first, that I find your initial question, as stated, strange. Ex hypothesi (based on the assumption(s) at hand), you are bound to deny that I understand the scriptures, just as I am bound to deny that you understand them. I wish to note further that there's a whole bunch of scriptural texts. You think you understand every single line perfectly? I make no such claims, especially given the fact that I haven't read it all.

But perhaps you wish to ask a more general question: how do we come to understand the proper meaning of texts in general? The answer to this, Lon, is very much contrary to protestant practice/belief.

Makes sense. "We" try to read the bible through all the way, some once a year, some a little longer, over and over again AND understand it.

Pick up Aristotle's Physics and just start reading it. Don't use secondary literature, consult commentaries or consult a teacher of Aristotle...and above all, most certainly don't use your own reason and ask yourself the question: "But what is most coherent with right reason?"


Come back to me afterwards and tell me how well you've understood the work. Even granted that you've read commentaries, the quality of that commentary is going to differ based on how thoroughly steeped in the authentic Aristotelian tradition it is. Jonathan Barnes (a modern British analytic philosopher) and Alexander of Aphrodisias (an ancient Greek commentator on Aristotle) are not equal commentators on Aristotle.

Perhaps one day. It isn't really on the top of my reading list. I'd assume you are trying to compare it to scripture but I'd say more different than the same.

The best way to understand a text, so far as I can see, is already to have a pre-determined hermeneutic/interpretational lens whereby to understand and interpret that text. That holds true of the ancient philosophers; that holds true of the sacred scriptures.

Tradition, authority, commentary. However, I get to work hard, like a good Berean, who were noble, because they studied hard.

Note, of course, that you don't disagree with me. All protestants already do this, as is evident in their choice of proof-texts. You have a pre-determined hermeneutic that colors your reading of the scripture. The question, of course, that I'll ask is: "But why should I read the scriptures through those lenses?" And ultimately, Lon, you'll come up short, and I won't.

You assume wrongly. I find most times, it is better to read for understanding myself, and I prefer to do so on nearly all things. Occasionally I will defer to another on things that don't interest me at all.

Because my answer is: "Because my hermeneutic (interpretational apparatus) is based on a living tradition started by Jesus and passed on to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops of the Church."

You can, of course, deny the fact...but you cannot deny that, if the fact is true, then my way of reading the scriptures is far more likely to attain to the correct interpretation(s).

You have a lot of assumptions going on there. I'm not quite as inept as it must be for the congregation of the Catholic church? I don't think it is just brilliance, but you guys deny the work of the Spirit and God's Sovereignty on an individual basis. This all makes sense when you are doing a lot of 'dependence' instead of independence, and assuming AS and tradition etc, but you are building this all of your own supposition and choices. There isn't a lot of preaching of the Holy Spirit in the RC. It is problematic. He is denied the power to lead you individually in your walk

You further cannot deny, Lon, that regardless of what you say about my hermeneutic, there is absolutely nothing that you can offer me which grants me an objective warrant to subscribe to your hermeneutic. Why in the bloody blazes should I care about how John Calvin interpreted the scriptures? Who is John Calvin to me? :rolleye:

False dilemma. You have admitted to not even reading your Bible once. Huge difference between us. You have no choice, I do.

1. I grant the possibility that the Holy Spirit very well might inspire a person in the state of grace with some special insights into the scriptures that he or she is reading. I have no reason to rule this out a priori.

That said, Lon, even granted that He did, you must understand that "Because the Holy Ghost thus inspired me" makes for a bloody poor justification for why I should accept your interpretation.

I'm not asking you to. You aren't even reading the scripture. It is odd that a Catholic doesn't need to read his/her bible or be led by the Spirit of God to understand it.

[Thus does the Church lay special emphasis on public, not private, revelation.]

Scriptures are incredibly public. They 'used' to be private.

Furthermore, Lon, such a claim begs the question. I fully grant that whatever the Holy Ghost says is true. I deny that your interpretation is true. Therefore, I must conclude, the Holy Ghost has not inspired such an interpretation. By asserting the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, you have presupposed the very thing of which I have asked to be persuaded.

Again, you are dependent upon neither when you don't even read those scriptures for His Spirit to guide.

2. The insistence on personal inspiration by the Holy Spirit is a protestant reaction to the Catholic claim that the Holy Ghost inspires the public teachings of the Catholic Church. I'll let you work out the middle terms for yourself...at any rate, I'm sure that you can understand how, once more, by appealing to private inspiration, you once more have begged the question, i.e., have presupposed the very thing in dispute.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy and catch-22. You don't have to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to figure it out because you trust your elders to be filled with the Spirit, and Traditions to have been inspired by Him. It is a rather impersonal relationship with God. It illustrates a lot of why Protestants don't believe many Catholics are Christians, however. There are problems with not being a new creation in Christ.

Look up St. Thomas Aquinas' teachings on charity. The Holy Spirit is Divine Love Itself; the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the believer in a state of grace is a participation in Divine love Itself. It transforms such a person inwardly in order that he might become progressively more and more deiform.

If you refer back to the thread I wrote on my commentary on St. John's Gospel, you'll find more there.

I'll answer the rest later.

That's a good thing to counter the claims you are not born again. Christ can only indwell new creations.

 

[Cruciform]

>bump< for CM

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You insist on repeating this point. What in particular do you have in mind? What was declared at the council? Was St. Augustine or a work of his specifically named? Or is it perhaps simply more likely that you (or the author that you likely are basing yourself on) simply have misunderstood either the council or St. Augustine?

Trent made it clear that justification by faith alone was anathema. That Rome does not understand the man they claim only means they embrace and reject him at the same time. Such are the inconstencies of Romanism.

“He that justifies the ungodly, to the man who believes in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed for righteousness.”
- Phillip Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, s.l, v. 01 (05), Aurelius Augustine, The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, Chapter 18, (Albany, Oregon: 19964997); 159.

“Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life,”
- Phillip Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, s.l, v. 03 (13), Aurelius Augustine, Enchiridion, Chapter 51, (Albany, Oregon: 19964997); 491.

“Whence also the just of old, before the Incarnation of the Word, in this faith of Christ, and in this true righteousness, (which thing Christ is unto us,) were justified; believing this to come which we believe come: and they themselves by grace were saved through faith, not of themselves, but by the gift of God, not of works, lest haply they should be lifted up. For their good works did not come before God’s mercy, but followed it. For to them was it said, and by them written, long ere Christ was come in the flesh, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will have compassion.” From which words of God the Apostle Paul, should so long after say; “It is not therefore of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” It is also their own voice, long ere Christ was come in the flesh, “My God, His mercy shall prevent me.” How indeed could they be aliens from the faith of Christ, by whose charity even Christ was fore-announced unto us; without the faith of Whom, not any of mortals either hath been, or is, or ever shall be able to be, righteous? if then, being already just, the Apostles were elected by Christ, they would have first chosen Him, that just men might be chosen, because without Him they could not be just. But it was not so: as Himself saith to them, “Not ye have chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” Of which the Apostle John speaks, “Not that we loved God, but that He loved us.”
- Phillip Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, s.l, v. 03 (13), Aurelius Augustine, On Patience, (Albany, Oregon: 1996 1997); 966.

“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God.”
- Phillip Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, s.1, v. 01 (05), Aurelius Augustine, A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, 1:1, (Albany, Oregon: 1996-1997); 1229.

“Now, in order that such a course may engage our affections, God’s “love is shed abroad in our hearts,” not through the free-will which arises from ourselves, but “through the Holy Ghost, which is given to us.”
- Phillip Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, s.1, v. 5 (15), Aurelius Augustine, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, (Albany, Oregon: 1996- 1997); 297.

"Not so our father Abraham. This passage of scripture is meant to draw our attention to the difference. We confess that the holy patriarch was pleasing to God; this is what our faith affirms about him. So true is it that we can declare and be certain that he did have grounds for pride before God, and this is what the apostle tells us. It is quite certain, he says, and we know it for sure, that Abraham has grounds for pride before God. But if he had been justified by works, he would have had grounds for pride, but not before God. However, since we know he does have grounds for pride before God, it follows that he was not justified on the basis of works. So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; Gn 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.

"3. Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God's scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep.

"My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God's command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, "No, I won't. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders; his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit. "
- John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.

"But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions[,u] (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence. "
- John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.

AMR

 

[oatmeal]

Often, Cruciform will answer, in reaction to various assertions of protestants ultimately asserting sola scriptura, the following: "'...the Word of God as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect,' you mean."

He says this constantly, in pretty much these exact words. It might come off as spam. Yet, and do consider this point, every time he says it, it's completely relevant to the conversation at hand and directly answers the point in response to which he wrote it.

Why does he "spam" this comment? Because Protestants spam their own sayings. "The Word of God alone" (referring, here, not to the Incarnate Word, but to the Bible).

Simply peruse the sayings of the protestants on this board; in answer to Catholics, they will, almost invariably, cite a given biblical verse (with little to no explanation), insist that it disagrees with some Catholic doctrine, and insist further that the Catholic doctrine is contrary to biblical teaching, being solely the product of "a man-made tradition."

All the while, the protestant who is speaking will seem utterly and ironically oblivious to the fact that he is interpreting the Biblical verse at hand (probably unconsciously) entirely through the lenses of his own given protestant sect, a sect whose tradition can be traced to a particular man or set of men in history. [Protestantism did not exist prior to the 1500s. Protestantism, by its very definition, is a man-made historical reaction to the Catholic Church. Protestantism, by its very definition, is parasitic upon Catholicism.]

The sheer hubris of the protestants never ceases to amaze me: they insist on quoting the Bible to us in "proof" of the error of our doctrines...as though Catholic scholars, in the roughly 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, have never come across or explained such verses? As though no Catholic scholar, in the roughly 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, has ever read the Bible?

No: the verses that the Protestants will insist on quoting only take on polemical significance when viewed through very specific lenses, in a very specific light, e.g., when interpreted in the way that Bob the protestant began to interpret it in, say, the late 1800s.

"Traditions of men" indeed!

Does Cruciform sound like a broken record? You bet he does...but only because this forum, and protestantism in general, is full of broken records. He keeps repeating himself because protestants insist on repeating their own litany of errors: "Traditions of men! The Word of God alone!" [Though it's apparently only spam when we do it. ]

Cruciform never sounds original because the protestants insist on rehashing their own tired slogans over and over and over again. What amazes me is not that he says these things, but that he hasn't become exhausted in having to hear protestants repeating themselves so often, and that he actually bothers to repeat himself so many times.

It gets old. Trust me on that one.

What you have clearly demonstrated is that scripture does not influence the RCC whatsoever.

The RCC has no interest in scripture as the source of truth. John 17:17

That is why when believers point out scripture to you, you really don't care.

It is high time that people took heed to scripture for it is God's written words.

 

[Sherman]

I am going to weigh in on this discussion. Traditio actually dialogs. He puts thought into his posts. I did not hammer Cruciform just because he was Catholic. He just kept throwing out links and the insult "as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect". That is not dialog. Dialog is what drives TOL.

Traditio, perhaps you can help your friend by encouraging him to dialog instead of throwing out phrases intended to get a rise out of the membership? I would like to see fewer link backs to posts,, less link dropping, less repetition and just more thought out dialog, such as what you post.

 

[Cruciform]

...the insult "as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect".

No "insult" whatsoever, but rather a simple observation that no non-Catholic has yet been able to disprove or substantively answer.

Traditio, perhaps you can help your friend by encouraging him to dialog...

What is it exactly that you think requires "dialog"?

...instead of throwing out phrases intended to get a rise out of the membership?

Straw Man Fallacy.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What you have clearly demonstrated is that scripture does not influence the RCC whatsoever.

This from a patented non-Christian. In any case, your latest Straw Man Fallacy is noted.

The RCC has no interest in scripture as the source of truth. John 17:17

Jesus' statement here refers to God's message in whatever form it is communicated, not specifically to "the Bible," which did not even exist when he spoke these words. Try again.

That is why when believers point out scripture to you, you really don't care.

In fact, we don't care about your preferred interpretations (opinions) of Scripture, not Scripture itself. Big difference there.

It is high time that people took heed to scripture for it is God's written words.

See first answer above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Traditio]

AMR:

You were talking about the protestant sola fide heresy, which was anathematized at Trent, and you assert that this was condemned, at least in part, on the grounds of being semi-pelagian?

I answer in two ways:

1. Sola fide indeed bears the hallmarks of pelagianism (or some variant or semi-variant thereof).

2. The texts that you have produced do not show that St. Augustine held to it.

1a. 1 has never occurred to me in quite those terms, but I have had a similar thought before. The error of pelagianism and its variants ultimately subsists in this, i.e., in asserting that the work of salvation finds its first initiative in man, not in God. That sola fide presupposes precisely this point, it seems to me, is utterly undeniable; so true is this, in fact, that various protestants even go so far as to deny that the baptism of infants confers real grace: after all, infants cannot intellectually assent to the various doctrines of the Christian faith, and it is this act, so think the protestants, of believing in these doctrines of faith which is the cause of salvation.

Indeed, given how much Calvin apparently insisted on God's sovereignty and on monergism (the latter of which can be shown to be false by means of philosophical reason), I can't help but be amused at the fact that he actually "bought into" this particular heresy.

What could possibly exalt God's sovereignty more than Catholic sacramental theology? What could possibly rob God of His transcendent Kingship and sovereign power than the doctrine of "faith alone," and a denial of sacramental theology?

For in Catholic sacramental theology, we profess that it is God who effects the work of our salvation, and that it is He who primarily has the initiative in our salvation, not us: we can either participate in or resist God's saving work; ultimately, however, it is God who saves, and salvation is a divine, not a human work (contrary to this "sola fide" nonsense). After all, in the sacraments, it is Jesus Himself who acts.

Come to think of it, AMR, Catholics believe in the so called "Solus Christus" much more ardently than protestants do: that's why we insist that the sacraments are so necessary. This is a simple corollary to our awareness that we need Jesus.

2a. The texts that you have produced do not show that St. Augustine held to a doctrine of faith alone. Again, contrary to the protestant cherry picking tendency, we must take what he said in their proper contexts (whether historical, rhetorical, etc). When he insists on the priority of faith over works, he is simply echoing St. Paul, who insists that we cannot be saved by works of the law (which would, again, be pelagian; that we are saved by works is not a Catholic teaching, but that of judaizers).

2b. Furthermore, the insistence that all of our good works, our faith, etc. come from God does not contradict Catholic theology. Again, to deny this constitutes pelagianism.

3b. At any rate, nothing you've quoted isn't entirely consistent with Catholic teaching and with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. They only serve as "proof texts" when read through your own protestant hermeneutic.

On the contrary, I agree with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church: faith saves, if by "faith" is understood "a living faith, i.e., a faith enlivened by the charity of the Holy Ghost, ordinarily effected through the sacraments of the Church, a living faith which can be extinguished by the commission of a mortal sin."

 

[Traditio]

I am going to weigh in on this discussion.

To be clear, Mme. Sherman, you were under no obligation to do so. As I explained later in the thread, this was not, strictly speaking, a call-out thread against the moderation. [At this point, I simply have no interest in making complaints against TOL moderation.]

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely disagree with your moderator action and I was positively furious when I saw the course of action which had been taken.

Nonetheless, the purpose of the thread was not to call you out. Do take note, Mme. Sherman, that I made absolutely no mention of you or of Cruciform's infraction in the OP. The purpose of the thread was to defend and provide an exposition of the saying that Cruciform "spams."

I did not hammer Cruciform just because he was Catholic. He just kept throwing out links and the insult "as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect".

I've addressed this in the OP and in subsequent postings. He posts links which are relevant to the discussion at hand, and he throws out the "insult," again, when that "insult" is appropriate (in point of fact, I deny that it's an insult at all).

That is not dialog. Dialog is what drives TOL.

Cruciform's "spam" is symptomatic of the level of debate on TOL in general. :idunno:

Traditio, perhaps you can help your friend by encouraging him to dialog instead of throwing out phrases intended to get a rise out of the membership? I would like to see fewer link backs to posts,, less link dropping, less repetition and just more thought out dialog, such as what you post.

This is what Cruciform was answering in the post for which you gave him an infraction:

"Correction. The Final Authority is the Word of God plus nothing."

How many times do you think that Bright Raven had written that before? In those exact words, no doubt? How many times do you think other protestants have written those [exact] words? On this forum? This week?

It was a stock protestant cliche. In my view, a stock protestant cliche, in all justice, deserves no more answer than a stock reply. You dislike the fact that Cruciform throws out stock answers? Then where is your complaint about the equally stock, repetitive, [though much more] mindless dribble that issues forth from the keyboards of the various protestants on this board?

Of course, I myself expect little more. I find it strange that you would. :idunno: