tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3904456020325989666..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "20,000 denominations"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92080879698989096942008-05-26T20:35:00.000-04:002008-05-26T20:35:00.000-04:00Steve & Jason:I will admit both of you have made g...Steve & Jason:<BR/><BR/>I will admit both of you have made good points on a lot of things in this discussion. Of course there were some points which I thought I made a better case, but I can honestly say you two can put up a good fight.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I have spent way too much time online the past few weeks (over 4hrs per day) that I think it is hurting me spiritually and physically, Im going to try to cut back to less than 1hr per day for a while.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I will try to try to comment on anything I find interesting that Triablogue has going in the future.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48698243205425824172008-05-26T18:48:00.000-04:002008-05-26T18:48:00.000-04:00Also keep in mind that we've been arbitrarily rest...Also keep in mind that we've been arbitrarily restricting ourselves to the Magisterial Reformation, since that's what you want to talk about. But I don't think we're entitled to summarily dismiss other Protestant options like Anabaptism or subsequent developments like fundamentalism. They have a right to make a Biblical case for their position, too.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48663577723979577522008-05-25T12:47:00.000-04:002008-05-25T12:47:00.000-04:00NICK SAID:“It is an authority in so far as you acc...NICK SAID:<BR/><BR/>“It is an authority in so far as you accept what it says yet it was written at the time of the Reformation.”<BR/><BR/>That’s a completely illogical inference on your part. We can have independent reasons for what we believe. We can then accept what something else says—which happens to correspond with what we already believe, for other reasons. The fact that we agree with it doesn’t mean that we regard it as an authority-source. It would only function as an authority source if it were the authoritative source of our belief.<BR/><BR/>For example, I’m a native of the greater Seattle area. As such, I have many beliefs about Seattle which I formed on the basis of my firsthand experience. If I read a newspaper article about Seattle, I might agree with the article. My acceptance of the article in no way elevates the article to the status of an authority source. It’s just that the information in the article happens to dovetail with what I already believe about Seattle, based on information I already had apart from the article. If I’d never read the article, my beliefs would remain unchanged. <BR/><BR/>This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp. I don’t know why you keep committing this elementary blunder. <BR/><BR/>“It laid down a definition of SF long before you were alive, and a definition which Protestants have accepted down through the centuries.”<BR/><BR/>You’re confusing the descriptive with the normative. If you’re looking for a standard definition of SF in classic Protestant theology, the WCF is a good place to turn. That doesn’t mean the WCF is true. That doesn’t mean that SF is true. <BR/><BR/>There’s a difference between an accurate definition, and whether the definition accurately describes reality. These are two distinct issues. Whether SF is true is a Scriptural question. <BR/><BR/>“Of course you should think it an accurate summary of the Bible, but the fact is it is still an authoritative interpretation of the Bible that Reformed Protestants have always turned to and anyone disagreeing with the WCF on soteriology is unorthodox in their belief.”<BR/><BR/>What makes it an “authoritative interpretation” is the belief that it accurately summarizes the Bible. Scripture authorizes the WCF, not vice versa. <BR/><BR/>Now, the WCF has a function in church discipline. Certain Reformed institutions have a confession identity. Church officers and seminary professors must swear a doctrinal oath. The WCF supplies the criterion. It can be authoritative in that disciplinary context.<BR/><BR/>But I’m not a church officer or seminary professor. You keep trying to shoehorn me into a position which is not my position. And keep in mind that I’m not a strict subscriptionist.<BR/><BR/>“The classical Protestant Creeds dont require you to have read the original Reformers in their own words.”<BR/><BR/>I never start by asking myself, what does Reformed theology teach? I always start by asking myself, what does the Bible teach?<BR/><BR/>“I would say that whether you realize it or not your claim that ‘that's the authority source’ is not true. The best issue to prove this is the teaching of imputed righteousness, which is not found in Scripture but rather read into Scripture by the Protestant traditions.”<BR/><BR/>You know, you’re not even entitled to represent Catholic theology. You’re just a layman. You’re not a member of the Magisterium. You don’t even have a theology degree from a Catholic institution of higher learning (like the Gregorian) that I’m aware of.<BR/><BR/>“If it doesnt fall on 'one doctrine' then technically SF or Sola Scriptura (or both) could go and you would still be fine being a Protestant.”<BR/><BR/>Sola Scriptura is linchpin to Protestant identity. Of course the denial of sola scriptura doesn’t entail Roman Catholicism. There are many other options.<BR/><BR/>“The major Reformed Protestant authors today I have read state that if SF alone is wrong then Rome was right all along.”<BR/><BR/>It would mean, at most, that Rome was right all along on the issue of SF—not that Rome was right all along on anything else.<BR/><BR/>“I came here thinking that if I could convince you SF was wrong then you might reconsider Protestantism, but now I wonder.”<BR/><BR/>Protestantism isn’t a pushover. <BR/><BR/>“True, but if a similar situation does not exist in Protestantism then how are you even getting a definition for what Protestantism is without total theological relativism?”<BR/><BR/>In Protestant theology, revelation is the rule of faith. Revelation is the absolute.<BR/><BR/>“I have always been under the impression the Reformation was founded upon two essential doctrines, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, if you dont affirm those doctrines you cant be Protestant. But if one (or more?) could go and Protestantism would be fine then either Protestantism at its foundation is false or else there are no essential truths.”<BR/><BR/>In traditional Protestant theology, there are five soli, not two:<BR/><BR/>http://www.fivesolas.com/5solas.htm<BR/><BR/>In addition, I’m not merely a Protestant, but a Reformed Protestant, so in addition to the five soli, I also subscribe to various Reformed distinctives. But this is all contingent on Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“The very concept of an ‘essential’ doctrine disappears at that point because it could go at any moment in favor of a new interpretation of Scripture.”<BR/><BR/>As a Calvinist, I also have a doctrine of providence. It has always been God’s effectual will to guide the elect into a saving knowledge of the truth.<BR/><BR/>“You cant ‘break away’ from an APOSTATE body and come out with the Truth, that is a logical impossibility unless the Truth ceased to exist for a time. It is like my rotten apple analogy, you cant break off a piece of a rotten apple without that piece being tainted by rot.”<BR/><BR/>That’s because you fallaciously equate the truth with a body rather than the Word. <BR/><BR/>“A divine institution does not mean invisible, as the Church in Acts was clearly visible and the only Christian institution there was.”<BR/><BR/>The true church generally has a visible manifestation. That doesn’t mean the true church has a *singular* visible manifestation. And there’s also such a thing as the underground church, such as the faithful who were driven into hiding during the days of Elijah.<BR/><BR/>“But two denominations can never be as good as one another and yet have both be true.”<BR/><BR/>You’re being simpleminded. There are degrees of truth and falsehood. One denomination can hold more true beliefs than another.<BR/><BR/>If you’re going to be that rigid, then there was no true church before the ecumenical councils hammered out the contours of orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>“Thus if there is one true Gospel then only one denomination can be holding it.”<BR/><BR/>Your one-to-one correspondence is quite arbitrary. You might as well say that if there is one true Gospel, then only one Apostle can preach it. Or if there’s only one true Gospel, the, only one person can believe it. <BR/><BR/>There’s a one-to-many relationship between truth and believers, or truth and messengers. So your numerical symmetry is patently fallacious. You really need to come up with a better argument than that. <BR/><BR/>“Any doctrinal error in a denomination means their Gospel is in error by definition.”<BR/><BR/>I daresay that if a Catholic theologian were to quiz the average Catholic layman, he’d find that the layman held some erroneous doctrinal beliefs. Does this mean that most Catholics don’t believe the Gospel?<BR/><BR/>“So does this mean the Church is invisible or not? Was there always at least one true Christian alive on earth who was a member of a denomination without doctrinal error?”<BR/><BR/>It means that I don’t equate visibility with singularity. The universal church, like universals generally, such as shades of color, is variously exemplified in time and place. <BR/><BR/>You don’t have to belong to a doctrinally inerrant denomination to be saved. Did pre-Christian Jews belong to doctrinally inerrant denominations?<BR/><BR/>In addition, baptism was the only rite of membership in the NT church. <BR/><BR/>“But that is where other factors come in and annihilate the LDS and JW positions. Both of those groups openly claim the Church Jesus established flopped very early on, thus they cant make a case for historical continuity much less historical visibility.”<BR/><BR/>I agree that other factors must come into play. That’s my point. <BR/><BR/>However, Protestantism can lay claim to historical continuity as well. The present is continuous with the past, as a result of lineal historical causation. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, God hasn’t told us that historical continuity and/or historical visibility are criteria to identify the true church. You’re beginning with Catholicism, and then selecting criteria selected by Catholicism. Reverse engineering. The exercise is viciously circular.<BR/><BR/>“If visibility is not one of the marks of the true Church then you have to say the visible bodies in Acts were irrelevant.”<BR/><BR/>The Book of Acts doesn’t say that visibility is a mark of the true church. That’s just something you’re parroting from Catholic theology, not something you’re exegeting from the text of Acts. <BR/><BR/>Visibility is an incidental property of any organization with human participants—like Exxon. <BR/><BR/>“It would make the words of Jesus, ‘tell it to the Church,’ ridiculous.”<BR/><BR/>Which is a reference to the local church—local church discipline—not the universal church. And his words don’t distinguish a faithful body from a heretical body.<BR/><BR/>“Ecclesiology does not operate in the same way Sacraments do.”<BR/><BR/>It most certainly does. Apostolic succession is contingent on the valid administration of holy orders. <BR/><BR/>“So your original comments of ‘breaking away’ from an Apostate body is a logical impossibility. If you are the remnant then you are the body and thus cannot be apostate nor can you break away. Only false groups can break away.”<BR/><BR/>You’re committing elementary division/composition fallacies—as if what is true of the whole is inherently true of the part, and vice versa. It’s easy to come up with counterexamples: atoms are colorless; cats are composed of atoms; therefore, cats are colorless.<BR/><BR/>“The PBC was demoted from a teaching office to a opinion office by the time the liberal Brown and Co. came in.”<BR/><BR/>I’m aware of that escape clause. That doesn’t change the fact that modern Popes are sanctioning the historical-critical method by promoting rather than demoting liberals like Fitzmyer and Brown. It’s worthless to say that Catholicism has one policy on paper, and another in practice. Who cares what its official policy amounts to if its official policy is a dead letter? <BR/><BR/>“As for the Koenig thing, I have not heard of it, but no doctrine was changed here either given VII did not define any new doctrines.”<BR/><BR/>I didn’t say it defined a new doctrine. It did the reverse. It backed away from reaffirming an old doctrine. It was set to reaffirm the traditional commitment to plenary inspiration until Koenig persuaded the Council to the contrary. That marked a sea-change in Catholic Bible scholarship.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55040841904834060302008-05-25T10:59:00.000-04:002008-05-25T10:59:00.000-04:00Nick: "I came here thinking that if I could convi...<B>Nick</B>: "<I>I came here thinking that if I could convince you SF was wrong then you might reconsider Protestantism, but now I wonder.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Alright. I confess to all my silly delusion.<BR/><BR/>I have deluded myself in hopelessly thinking that Nick and other Catholics, having digested the overwhelmingly convincing arguments for <I>Sola Fide</I> would abandon Catholicism and become Reform Protestants!<BR/><BR/>Go ahead and yuk it up. I admit to being naive and delusional. I'm just not as experienced as the Triabloguers in discussing these matters with non-Reform folks. But I am getting there.<BR/><BR/>I am learning that it's not a matter of intellect at all for folks like Nick, Dmitry, Historical Number Cruncher, et al. It's simply that their hearts have been hardened like Pharaoh and they've become mockingly prideful Catholic Pharisees. <BR/><BR/>It's not impossible to convert a prideful Pharisee. After all, Jesus did convert the Apostle Paul. And there are numerous, numerous former Catholics. Which gave rise to my delusion that Nick, et al would join the ranks of former Catholics, but I will now abandon this delusion given the repeated evidence of Nick's willful blindness and his pitifully inept arguments that get recycled over and over.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80710361761160151812008-05-25T10:32:00.000-04:002008-05-25T10:32:00.000-04:00Nick wrote:"Without imputed righteousness in the e...Nick wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Without imputed righteousness in the equation the phrase 'Justification by Faith Alone' is empty of the meaning the Reformers had, any 'other issues' are very minor compared to imputation."<BR/><BR/>You're changing the subject. We were discussing whether I used "mere phrases" or defined my terms. You suggested that you couldn't have a discussion with me if my terms weren't defined. Now that I've demonstrated that I <I>did</I> give definition to my terms, you're responding by saying that my definition was "empty of the meaning the Reformers had" and "very minor compared to imputation". Arguing that my definition was different from that of the reformers and was of a minor nature isn't the same as arguing that I had no definition.<BR/><BR/>And I've explained why an issue such as whether justification is received through faith or through a combination of faith and works isn't "minor". You haven't refuted that explanation. The issue of what a person must do in order to be justified is of major significance, both Biblically (Acts 15:1-11, 16:31, Galatians 3:1-25, etc.) and logically. If God had never revealed to us that our justification involves imputed righteousness, it would still be of major significance that God accepts sinners through faith, not through a combination of faith and works. The idea that the means of attaining justification is a "minor" issue is ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as I've demonstrated, I <I>have</I> affirmed a traditional Protestant understanding of imputation since the beginning of our discussion. Thus, even if imputed righteousness needs to be included in order for my definition of justification to be more than "minor", I <I>did</I> include imputed righteousness in my definition.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I as a Catholic dont need to give links (unless requested) because you should already know if Im not following Trent or such document Im not in line with what the Catholic Church teaches."<BR/><BR/>Different Catholics have different beliefs about justification and different beliefs about which "such documents" represent church teaching. If Evangelicals need to cite something like the Westminster Confession when they use a phrase like "imputed righteousness", even if they've already said that they agree with a traditional Protestant understanding of imputation, then you need to cite Roman Catholic documents to define your terminology. Besides, as I've documented, you didn't just fail to cite Roman Catholic documents. Your earliest posts also failed to cite Protestant documents when you were discussing Protestant beliefs about justification. Yet, you act as if I would need to cite such documents if I'm to discuss the subject.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Definitions of theological terms and ideas SHOULD come PRIMARILY through Creeds/Councils etc. A dictionary should be an indispensable reference for a game of Scrabble, just as Creeds and Confessions should be the essential and primary documents when having a theological debate/discussion."<BR/><BR/>Then why didn't you cite "Creeds/Councils etc." in your earliest posts? Why don't you visit some other forums for a while and see how many people cite something like the Westminster Confession every time a term like "justification" or "imputation" enters the discussion?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I would need you to go onto affirm something like the Westminster because the sentence you quoted here (from your first post) was ambiguous, especially with your follow up comments."<BR/><BR/>If my affirmation of imputation was "ambiguous", then so was your discussion of the subject. I made my affirmation in response to something you had written about imputation. If you didn't know what I was affirming, then your reference to imputation, which I was responding to, must have been "ambiguous" as well.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone requires imputation at its core, to say 'its not the same issue' makes me wonder just how important you consider imputation."<BR/><BR/>You keep changing the subject. Whether I assign the correct level of importance to imputation isn't the same issue as whether I affirm imputation. You've been acting as if my affirmation of justification through faith alone is a "mere phrase", as if it has no definition. Now that I've documented that I <I>did</I> define my terminology, including an affirmation of imputed righteousness, you're objecting that my definition doesn't assign enough importance to imputation. But saying that my definition doesn't give imputation enough weight isn't the same as saying that I have no definition.<BR/><BR/>And I've already answered your claim that I don't give imputation enough weight. The book of Galatians condemns the adding of works to the gospel as a means of receiving justification. There is no comparable passage of scripture regarding imputation. If scripture treats the former as a foundational issue, but doesn't treat the latter in the same manner, then why am I wrong in doing the same? You've cited the importance of imputation in Protestant thought, but I (and Protestants in general) consider scripture a higher authority than something like the Westminster Confession. And you haven't even demonstrated that such Protestant sources consider imputation as important as you claim they do. To the contrary, as I've explained before, many Protestants (not just me) affirm that people can be justified without a belief in imputation. That's why we often refer to men as Christians even if we aren't aware of any affirmation of imputation anywhere in their writings (a church father, a medieval theologian, etc.).<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Without imputation I as a Catholic could affirm the phrase 'justification by faith alone' but I would have a very very different understanding than you."<BR/><BR/>Why is it supposed to be so significant that you can affirm a phrase that you define differently? As I've documented, you don't just disagree with me about imputation. You also disagree on issues such as whether justification is received through faith or through a combination between faith and something else (like baptism). Removing imputation from the discussion wouldn't bring us into agreement. Your addition of works to the gospel as a means of attaining justification puts your gospel under the condemnation of Galatians, even if we were to ignore the issue of imputation.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I can go through the Scripture and every time I see a reference that talks about justification by faith I can and do say 'men'but I have a VERY different definition of justification than what classical Protestantism has."<BR/><BR/>I've already addressed that argument. You can say "amen" only by assuming that works are included in passages that only mention faith. That's a deceptive "amen".<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"'Some definition' is not what Im looking for."<BR/><BR/>Again, you're changing the subject. I wasn't addressing "what you're looking for". I was addressing what you <I>said</I>. You said that my affirmation of justification through faith alone had no definition, that it was a "mere phrase". Thus, if my affirmation <I>did</I> have "some definition", then you were wrong. The fact that you want more definition than the "some" I've referred to doesn't change the fact that the existence of "some definition" refutes your previous claim.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Even so, even if you do say you agree with the Westminster definition of justification your other comments like Scripture only saying one of the two is essential undermines the Westminster definition requiring both as essential."<BR/><BR/>First of all, you haven't documented that the Westminster Confession defines imputation as essential in the sense in which you've suggested that it's essential. Yet, you claim to be so interested in seeing documentation from sources like Westminster. You keep failing to offer the sort of documentation you demand from other people.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, if you're going to require that I not only agree with Westminster about the definition of imputation, but also agree with it about the <I>significance</I> of imputation, then this isn't just a matter of defining terms (whether my affirmation of justification is a "mere phrase"). Rather, you're also expecting me to agree with the hierarchy of beliefs within the sources I cite to define my terms. Why should I? Should I expect Roman Catholics to refrain from claiming agreement with the beliefs of the church fathers, for example, if they don't also agree with the hierarchy in which the fathers placed those beliefs?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"And the Biblical passages you gave (3 of them) I DID interact with them, and I told you why they hardly proved justification by faith alone, much less imputation."<BR/><BR/>You left the discussion after I responded to your "interactions".<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"In my first posts I made clear references to classical Protestant theology"<BR/><BR/>If your initial posts were "clear" in what they were referring to, then my affirmation of imputed righteousness in response to your earlier posts was "clear" as well. You keep contradicting yourself.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I responded by telling you the classical creeds like Westminster would not allow refusal of imputation and still consider that orthodox Protestant theology."<BR/><BR/>Once again, you're changing the subject. I was addressing whether belief in imputation is considered necessary for salvation. That's not the same issue as whether a person has "orthodox Protestant theology". The fact that you have to keep changing the subject doesn't speak well for your arguments.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Because I have done a lexical analysis in my justification article (on my profile webpage) and I demonstrate clearly that imputing an alien status doesnt fit the Biblical evidence. On top of that I quote people like John Calvin defining terms like 'impute' but I show his reasoning is flawed and eisegesis. There is NO WAY you or any other Protestant could approach Scripture as unbiased as possible and pull out imputed righteousness from Scripture unless you were trained to read it INTO the Bible. The Biblical FACT is that when the term for 'impute' is used in Scripture only a small percentage of references mean imputing an alien status, the largest percentage (by far) in the OT and NT refer to recognizing the actual status of something. And the Protestant authors I have read who actually address the term 'impute' either deliberately or ignorantly dont address the full usage of 'impute' in Scripture."<BR/><BR/>None of what you've just said demonstrates that Protestants reach their conclusion based on "the say-so of the Reformers". And whether imputation is taught in scripture involves more than the issue of how often the term "impute" involves "an alien status". Some of the passages cited by Protestants on this subject don't even involve the term "impute". The concept can be present without that term. Even if every Protestant you've read on this subject has been wrong, it doesn't therefore follow that they've been getting their views from "the say-so of the Reformers".<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Sure a seeker/outsider would look at all the sources at their disposal, but Creeds are indispensable to see how one group understands certain teachings of Scripture, and that seeker can decide if there is enough evidence to decide to adhere to a given Creed."<BR/><BR/>You keep ignoring the context of what I said. Again, the issue isn't whether sources such as creeds would be involved. Rather, the issue is whether <I>other</I> sources would be involved as well (the writings of the church fathers, archeology, etc.). Other sources would be involved. Thus, an "outsider", as you put it, who's trying to determine what to believe would rely on his personal interpretation of sources other than creeds, councils, etc. Yet, you criticize Protestants for such reliance on personal interpretation, as if they're "going their own way". All of us do what you've criticized Protestants for doing.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Since there were no councils for Ignatius and Justin we can go directly to their writings, but in the case of the Reformers and the Reformation as a movement, groups of Protestant theologians got together and dogmatized what they considered the essentials."<BR/><BR/>The fact that some Protestants were involved in formulating councils, creeds, etc. doesn't prove that we can't <I>also</I> go to their writings as individuals in order to see if what a later source is advocating is consistent with what those earlier Protestants believed. If Martin Luther affirms the deity of Christ in one of his letters, I don't have to go to the Westminster Confession to see what it says about the deity of Christ in order to know whether my belief in that concept is consistent with what Martin Luther believed.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"At that point Protestantism was defined according to whatever Protestant Creed you adhered to and not any given writing or comment by an individual Reformer."<BR/><BR/>You're changing the subject. Earlier, you referred to what "the Reformers" believed. Now you're referring to "Protestantism".<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I could AGREE justification is by faith alone apart from baptism"<BR/><BR/>Not as I've defined that term. That's why you and I have disagreed about Galatians 3:27, for example.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I can still hold a radically different understanding of justification, that is what you fail to realize."<BR/><BR/>I haven't denied that you can hold a different view of justification, even if you agree with me on an issue like the role of baptism. Whether you can hold a "radically" different view depends on what you mean by "radically". If you're suggesting that an absence of imputation in your view of justification is so significant as to prevent you from being a Christian, then I disagree, for reasons I've explained. But I don't deny that imputation is important. It can be important without being necessary for salvation. And as I said early on in our discussion, if a belief isn't necessary for salvation, how can you call it "essential"? I've repeatedly explained that I'm using "essential" in the sense of a belief necessary for salvation. You've tried to shift the discussion to whether belief in imputation is necessary in order for a person to have "orthodox Protestant theology". That's a different issue.<BR/><BR/>And, as Steve and I have both explained in our previous responses to you, even if we were to conclude that Protestantism had been wrong on imputation, it wouldn't therefore follow that the Reformation as a whole was something negative or that the Roman Catholic gospel is Biblically orthodox. We don't just disagree with you about whether imputation is correct. We also disagree with you about the implications that would follow if it weren't correct.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I could go around saying I adhere to Sola Scripture but have a different number of books in my Bible, that is why a definition of Sola Scriptura requires defining what books constitute Scripture."<BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't. To the contrary, many people who think that historical figures like Martin Luther held a different canon of scripture than most Protestants do will still refer to such historical figures as adherents of sola scriptura. If person A includes Esther in his canon, whereas person B doesn't, both could be considered adherents of sola scriptura. People often discuss whether somebody like Irenaeus or Augustine advocated sola scriptura or advocated the Roman Catholic rule of faith, even though both sides agree that men like Irenaeus and Augustine didn't have the same canon of scripture or canon of extra-Biblical tradition that modern Protestants and Catholics maintain.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"And APART from a definition you leave those terms up to be defined by the individual who can then embrace a definition contrary to your understanding."<BR/><BR/>If a person holds a different canon of scripture, then he disagrees with me about the canon, not sola scriptura. The issues are related, but not identical.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Catholics dont have a problem with privately looking at the evidence, they have a problem with what is called 'private interpretation' which means a Christian not in authority interpreting and imposing their own doctrines on others."<BR/><BR/>That's not what you said earlier. Who would deny that somebody not in a position to "impose" (not in authority) shouldn't be imposing?<BR/><BR/>Earlier, you criticized people for "starting up their own denomination". A denomination isn't imposed on people. Individuals can decide to join a denomination. Nobody is imposing Lutheranism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Methodism on you. A Lutheran pastor would teach the doctrines he believes in, but that's not the same as imposing those beliefs on others who haven't first chosen to submit to a Lutheran church, for example. And that Lutheran pastor would cite Biblical authority as his justification for what he teaches. He wouldn't claim that he's an authority by himself.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The Catholic side starts with the premise (could be wrong, but that is not circular) that the Church Jesus established never was lost and thus it is the duty of men to track it down. It is my duty to look at the available evidence and see which Church best fits that evidence."<BR/><BR/>Why should anybody "start with" such a premise? Even if you're saying that you only start with such a premise in a context such as a discussion with a conservative Protestant, why should a conservative Protestant let you begin with that premise? A conservative Protestant would dispute your definition of "the church", what it means for the church to be "lost", and whether there are <I>other</I> "duties" Christians have that might offset an alleged duty to find "the church". If you begin a discussion with a Protestant with a premise like the one you describe above, you won't get far.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"One of the first and easiest questions to ask is does the group you are looking into simply make the claim of being the one and only Church Jesus established and must be obeyed. You would be surprised how many Protestant denominations wont make such a claim, this isnt even about proving the claim but simply making the claim. But if the group wont make even the claim then I can count them out off the bat."<BR/><BR/>You're assuming some things that people would dispute. A person can believe that Jesus established a church that's existed throughout church history without believing that the church in question must always exist in the form of one denomination. If denominations A, B, and C exist in one century, and denominations X, Y, and Z exist in another century, a person can believe that all six denominations qualify as part of the church Jesus founded, even though some or all of those denominations are wrong on some issues. If they're all correct on the issues that are essential, then they don't have to be correct on every other issue in order to qualify as part of the church Jesus established. Or a person could maintain that the church that's always existed consists of regenerate individuals, regardless of their denomination or lack of denomination. Or a person could maintain that the Biblical evidence for a continually existing church is sufficient grounds for believing in it, even if he isn't aware of documentation of that church's existence for every part of church history. Etc. It's not as if belief in a church that exists from the time of the apostles onward requires belief in one denomination that's always existed. You're making some dubious assumptions that don't follow from the premises.<BR/><BR/>And it's not as if the Biblical passages about the nature of the church are the only criteria we have to go by. Scripture also tells us some things about the identity of Jesus, justification, and other issues. Even if Roman Catholicism were the only denomination claiming a continuous existence since the time of the apostles, we would still have other apostolic standards by which to judge Roman Catholicism: what it teaches about the deity of Christ, the resurrection, justification, etc. If Catholicism seems to be wrong about justification, and scripture defines that error on justification as an error of a foundational nature (as in Galatians), why should we follow Catholicism on the basis of its status as the only denomination claiming continuous existence since the time of the apostles? If you're suggesting that the need for a denomination that's continually existed since the time of the apostles should cause us to question our judgment about justification, then why couldn't we reverse the two? Why not take Catholicism's erroneous view of justification as an indication that we must be wrong about the need for a continuously existing denomination?<BR/><BR/>But the idea that there must be one denomination in continuous existence is dubious. Nothing Jesus and the apostles taught suggests that there must be one denomination that exists throughout church history. Roman Catholicism's claim of continuous existence is dubious, and Catholicism is disqualified on other grounds anyway, namely its false view of justification. <BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Protestants on the other hand start off with the premise that the Bible is inerrant and sufficient for all doctrine touching matters of salvation."<BR/><BR/>I don't start off with that premise. I argue for it.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The problem with that is they have no way of defining the canon of Scripture, the Bible itself, apart from an extra-Biblical statement, thus they have built their foundation on a circular argument."<BR/><BR/>Sola scriptura is about the identity of the rule of faith, not the means by which we arrive at that rule of faith. Every rule of faith is arrived at by means outside of itself. Just as a Protestant would go outside of the Bible in order to justify his canon of scripture, a Catholic would go outside of the Roman Catholic rule of faith in order to justify the canon of that rule of faith. How do you know that a decree attributed to a council or Pope actually came from that council or Pope? How do you know that you should be following councils and Popes to begin with? To make an objective case for such beliefs, you would appeal to historical evidence, such as historical documents and archeology. Such evidence isn't part of the Roman Catholic rule of faith. A rule of faith is something arrived at by means outside of that rule. That's not just true of sola scriptura. It's also true of the Catholic rule of faith. Just as you can ask a Protestant how he knows that his canon is correct, and he would have to appeal to historical evidence in order to make an objective case, a Protestant can ask you how you know that your canon for your rule of faith is correct, and you couldn't objectively justify that canon by merely citing some portion of the canon itself.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Further, they claim nobody can infallibly interpret the Scriptures, yet without that power you have no way of defining dogma leaving each person free to define what they choose (not to mention denominations regularly make the equivalent of dogmatic statements but just dont realize it)."<BR/><BR/>If scripture is infallible, then we have infallible definitions in scripture. Our affirmations of Biblical teaching (in statements of faith, creeds, etc.) don't have to be considered infallible in order for us to consider the source of those teachings (the Bible) infallible. If you're going to object to the fallibility of church teachings in Protestant churches, then why can't we object to the fallibility of what your local priest teaches, what a Roman Catholic father teaches his children, etc.? How do you know that infallibility should extend to denominational teachings, but need not extend to priests, fathers, etc.? If you can draw the line at denominational teachings, why can't I draw the line at scripture?<BR/><BR/>As far as "each person free" is concerned, that's reality. Every individual makes a choice about what doctrines to affirm or deny. Your choice to be Roman Catholic is just that: your choice. If I choose to be a Baptist, and you choose to be a Roman Catholic, both of us are following our personal judgment. The fact that the denomination you chose to join claims (erroneously) to be infallible doesn't change the fact that you chose to follow that denomination based on your fallible personal judgment. Just as you would claim that you're following an infallible source (the Roman Catholic Church), I would claim that I'm following an infallible source (the Bible). If you're just saying that you have an infallible denomination, whereas we only have an infallible book, then so what? On what basis are we supposed to believe that an infallible denomination is needed? The fact that you dislike the consequences of only having an infallible book, the fact that you think an infallible denomination would work better, etc. wouldn't give us sufficient reason to believe that such a denomination exists.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76981886356611026222008-05-25T06:23:00.000-04:002008-05-25T06:23:00.000-04:00NICK SAID:“You have to accept at least its chapter...NICK SAID:<BR/><BR/>“You have to accept at least its chapters on soteriology if you want to claim you are faithful to the Reformer's understanding of SF.”<BR/><BR/>Steve: i) That doesn’t mean I submit to the WCF as an authority source. Rather, it only means that I generally think the WCF is an accurate summary of Biblical doctrine.<BR/><BR/>Nick: It is an authority in so far as you accept what it says yet it was written at the time of the Reformation. It laid down a definition of SF long before you were alive, and a definition which Protestants have accepted down through the centuries. Of course you should think it an accurate summary of the Bible, but the fact is it is still an authoritative interpretation of the Bible that Reformed Protestants have always turned to and anyone disagreeing with the WCF on soteriology is unorthodox in their belief.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: ii) I have never attempted to systematically compare my understanding of sola fide with the Reformers. My knowledge of Reformed theology comes from further downstream—from theologians like Helm, Warfield, Cunningham, &c.<BR/><BR/>Nick: The classical Protestant Creeds dont require you to have read the original Reformers in their own words. The Lutheran Book of Concord for example does not accept everything Luther said, yet the standard for Lutherans is Concord, not any given quote from Luther's personal writings.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: Moreover, I only subscribe to Reformed theology because it coincides with exegetical theology. *That’s* the authority source. Not Calvin or the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I would say that whether you realize it or not your claim that "that's the authority source" is not true. The best issue to prove this is the teaching of imputed righteousness, which is not found in Scripture but rather read into Scripture by the Protestant traditions.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: “So you are saying if the Reformer's view of justification was shown to be wrong you would have no problem remaining Protestant?”<BR/>Correct. Protestant theology doesn’t rise or fall on one doctrine. The common thread in Protestant theology is, or ought to be, revelation.<BR/><BR/>Nick: What would it take for you to not remain Protestant any longer then?<BR/>If it doesnt fall on "one doctrine" then technically SF or Sola Scriptura (or both) could go and you would still be fine being a Protestant. The major Reformed Protestant authors today I have read state that if SF alone is wrong then Rome was right all along.<BR/><BR/>I came here thinking that if I could convince you SF was wrong then you might reconsider Protestantism, but now I wonder.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: That’s because Catholicism is predicated on a divine teaching office. If extraordinary magisterial teaching were false, that would falsify, not only the particular teaching, but the teaching office in general.<BR/><BR/>Nick: True, but if a similar situation does not exist in Protestantism then how are you even getting a definition for what Protestantism is without total theological relativism? I have always been under the impression the Reformation was founded upon two essential doctrines, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, if you dont affirm those doctrines you cant be Protestant. But if one (or more?) could go and Protestantism would be fine then either Protestantism at its foundation is false or else there are no essential truths.<BR/><BR/>The very concept of an "essential" doctrine disappears at that point because it could go at any moment in favor of a new interpretation of Scripture.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: You can break away from an apostate body if you have a criterion of truth in divine revelation (i.e. the Bible).<BR/><BR/>Nick: You cant "break away" from an APOSTATE body and come out with the Truth, that is a logical impossibility unless the Truth ceased to exist for a time. It is like my rotten apple analogy, you cant break off a piece of a rotten apple without that piece being tainted by rot.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: The church is a divine institution. It cannot apostatize. But Christian institutions can—and do.<BR/><BR/>Nick: A divine institution does not mean invisible, as the Church in Acts was clearly visible and the only Christian institution there was. Unless there was a "Christian institution" that has remained orthodox from the start the Church (of Acts) had to have apostatized.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: There were divisions within NT churches founded and supervised by the apostles. Was the Corinthian church a false church?<BR/><BR/>Nick: It depends on what you mean by "divisions". There were factions in the Corinthian congregation that Paul was extremely upset about and yelled at them for, obviously it was a bad and unacceptable thing. If you mean "divisions" in the sense the Corinthian congregation was physically separated from the Jerusalem congregation I would not say those were "divisions" as there was still only one visible Church led by the Apostles and Bishops but spread out.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: Some denominations are not as good or just as acceptable as any others. Denominations range along a continuum of fidelity and infidelity.<BR/><BR/>Nick: But two denominations can never be as good as one another and yet have both be true. Thus if there is one true Gospel then only one denomination can be holding it, and that denomination is the one true Church by definition. Any doctrinal error in a denomination means their Gospel is in error by definition.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: The church is instantiated in varying degrees in time and place—like a shade of color.<BR/><BR/>Nick: So does this mean the Church is invisible or not? Was there always at least one true Christian alive on earth who was a member of a denomination without doctrinal error?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses also have visible officials and visible institutions. Visibility is hardly a mark of the true church.<BR/><BR/>Nick: But that is where other factors come in and annihilate the LDS and JW positions. Both of those groups openly claim the Church Jesus established flopped very early on, thus they cant make a case for historical continuity much less historical visibility.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: Even in Catholic ecclesiology, visibility isn’t a mark of the true church. What makes an ordination valid is not a visible property. You can’t “see” if an ordination is valid. What makes a sacrament valid is not a visible property. You can’t “see” if a sacrament is valid. You can’t tell whether Benedict XVI is a Pope or Anti-Pope by merely looking at him. The Real Presence is not a visible property.<BR/>All the constitutive properties of the true church which you, as a Catholic define it, are imperceptible (indeed, indetectible) properties.<BR/><BR/>Nick: If visibility is not one of the marks of the true Church then you have to say the visible bodies in Acts were irrelevant, it would make the words of Jesus, "tell it to the Church," ridiculous. Ecclesiology does not operate in the same way Sacraments do.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: You don’t have to join what you are.<BR/><BR/>Nick: So your original comments of "breaking away" from an Apostate body is a logical impossibility. If you are the remnant then you are the body and thus cannot be apostate nor can you break away. Only false groups can break away.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: There are many examples. When you have popes appointing liberals like Joseph Fitzmyer and the late Ray Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, that implies papal approval for the historical-critical method—an explicit reversal of papal policy under Pius IX and Leo XIII.<BR/><BR/>Another example would be Cardinal Koenig’s speech at Vatican II, which persuaded the Council to refrain from reaffirming the Church’s traditional commitment to the plenary inspiration of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Nick: But none of those took the form of changing a doctrine. The PBC was demoted from a teaching office to a opinion office by the time the liberal Brown and Co. came in. As for the Koenig thing, I have not heard of it, but no doctrine was changed here either given VII did not define any new doctrines.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37435234048299638422008-05-25T05:16:00.000-04:002008-05-25T05:16:00.000-04:00Jason: Justification involves more than imputed ri...Jason: Justification involves more than imputed righteousness. I discussed some of the other issues involved, so even without any discussion of imputed righteousness, it's erroneous to claim that I "never progressed beyond the phrase 'JbyFA'".<BR/><BR/>Nick: Without imputed righteousness in the equation the phrase "Justification by Faith Alone" is empty of the meaning the Reformers had, any 'other issues' are very minor compared to imputation. Given that I totally disagree that "even without discussion of imputed righteousness" you can have JbyFA mean anything of substance. But I dont think we should let this discussion keep repeating itself or boil down into insults or anything like that so Ill cut off this specific discussion with this post (but I will try to address your Lk 18 post).<BR/><BR/>Jason:And when an Evangelical posting in a context like this one tells you that he believes in imputed righteousness, it doesn't make sense for you to act as if you need "Scripture or links" to determine what that person most likely has in mind. You haven't given us citations of Roman Catholic documents every time you've made references to your theology. Should we conclude that you've given us "mere phrases" every time you haven't provided such documentation?<BR/><BR/>Nick: I as a Catholic dont need to give links (unless requested) because you should already know if Im not following Trent or such document Im not in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. The same cannot be said of the Protestant position because they can adhere to any number of Creeds or none at all, thus it is essential to know where a given Protestant is coming from. That is why I insisted (multiple time) on finding out if you adhered to the Westminster Confession (I came to this blog under the assumption it was run by Calvinists).<BR/><BR/>[previous post] Nick: Doing a quick word search Jason made comments like this: <B>"A person can believe in justification through faith alone without believing in imputed righteousness or can affirm the former without commenting on the latter.<BR/>And time and again I made it clear that if imputed righteousness was not in the picture that was NOT the same Sola Fide the Reformers were defending."</B><BR/><BR/>Jason: Which is irrelevant to what I was discussing. I explained why I was distinguishing between imputed righteousness and other issues.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Yes, it was irrelevant to what you were discussing while it was very very relevant to what I have been discussing, thus we are talking past each other.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Then why do you keep posting responses?<BR/><BR/>Nick: My last post was the first time I went back and grabbed specific quotes of yours for those interested to read. I have shown that we are wasting eachother's time talking past one another so this is my last response on this subject.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason:How is my position that I don't have to cite something like the Westminster Confession equivalent to "defining each and every term from scratch"?<BR/><BR/>Nick: Because if a definition already exists there is no reason why you would not simply go with it. If a definition exists and yet you wont go with it it makes the rest of us wonder why? It would be like feeling the need to reinvent something that is already invented and documented. And why waste eachother's time watching you re-derive a definition that is already defined?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Definitions of terms can come from a lot of sources, not just a source like a creed or council. You refer to dictionaries, for example, and none of us even need a dictionary, much less a creed or council ruling, to understand each other's posts.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Definitions of theological terms and ideas SHOULD come PRIMARILY through Creeds/Councils etc. A dictionary should be an indispensable reference for a game of Scrabble, just as Creeds and Confessions should be the essential and primary documents when having a theological debate/discussion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason:Here's my first sentence in the first post I wrote in response to you:<BR/>"The concept of imputed righteousness is correct and important, but it's not the same issue as whether justification is received through faith alone."<BR/>I made that comment in response to something you said about the reformers' belief in imputed righteousness. The context was the traditional Protestant understanding of imputed righteousness. I affirmed that such an understanding of imputed righteousness is "correct and important". Why, then, would you need me to go on to cite something like the Westminster Confession in order to know anything about how I view imputed righteousness? Your claim that I only gave you "mere phrases", without any information defining those phrases, is absurd. It was clear, from the first sentence I wrote in response to you, that I agree with a traditional Protestant understanding of imputed righteousness.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I would need you to go onto affirm something like the Westminster because the sentence you quoted here (from your first post) was ambiguous, especially with your follow up comments. Here is one of your comments I already quoted: "I don't deny that the reformers taught imputed righteousness in addition to justification through faith alone. But they're two different concepts, and scripture only defines one of the two as essential."<BR/><BR/>The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone requires imputation at its core, to say "its not the same issue" makes me wonder just how important you consider imputation. Without imputation I as a Catholic could affirm the phrase "justification by faith alone" but I would have a very very different understanding than you. I can go through the Scripture and every time I see a reference that talks about justification by faith I can and do say "amen" but I have a VERY different definition of justification than what classical Protestantism has.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: You keep changing the subject. The fact that settling the issue of imputation would address my comments about baptism doesn't change the fact that I did make comments about baptism that give some definition to my view of justification. Therefore, it's erroneous for you to claim that my view of justification wasn't given any definition.<BR/><BR/>Nick: "Some definition" is not what Im looking for. Im not here to learn from scratch what classical Protestantism believes by Sola Fide, I'm not here to learn, piece by piece, all the things Sola Fide does not mean (not by Baptism, works, etc). A definition of SF already exists in Creeds and such, that is why I come out and ask if you affirm those definitions.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: I told you that I agree with the traditional Protestant concept of imputed righteousness. In the other thread, you asked me to cite a creed that I submit to as an authority. As I've explained to you repeatedly, I can agree with the large majority of what a Lutheran or Calvinist creed states, including its affirmation of imputed righteousness, without agreeing with it entirely. You're now shifting the discussion to whether I can cite a definition within a source such as the Westminster Confession. I never denied that I agree with some portions of the Westminster Confession. But I don't submit to it as an authority in the sense you suggested in the previous thread.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Then I was misunderstanding you. I was focused on whether you affirmed the salvation sections (esp justification) of those Creeds and not so much the other sections on church government and such. Even so, even if you do say you agree with the Westminster definition of justification your other comments like Scripture only saying one of the two is essential undermines the Westminster definition requiring both as essential.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: And when I tell you that I agree with the traditional Protestant view of imputation, I tell you that I believe that justification is received prior to baptism, I cite Biblical passages that reflect my view, etc. that's not "a good start"? I haven't given you any definition of my view? I'm just giving you "mere phrases"?<BR/><BR/>Nick: Saying justification is prior to Baptism does not necessitate imputation, and with the other quotes I have cited regarding your comments such as saying justification through faith alone and imputation are two different concepts I am left scratching my head. And the Biblical passages you gave (3 of them) I DID interact with them, and I told you why they hardly proved justification by faith alone, much less imputation. Your response was that you didnt cite them to prove imputation but rather an absence of baptism/works, which does nothing but prove we had two different discussions going. For example you cited Gen 15:6 and you said: "I didn't cite Genesis 15 on the issue of imputation."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: You keep asserting that a source like the Westminster Confession needs to be cited, yet you made no such citation in your earliest posts in the other thread. Here's the other thread:<BR/><BR/>Nick: I ORIGINALLY came to Triablogue under the impression it was run by Calvinists who adhered to the classical Creeds. In my first posts I made clear references to classical Protestant theology and when you made it appear imputation was not on the same level of importance as other things I said: " classical Lutheran and Reformed Creeds clearly indicate imputation is the only option means its level of importance must be the highest" I said that under the assumption you adhered to one of those classical Creeds. When the discussion was not going the way I expected it, along the lines of historical definitions, I began to check if you adhered to those classical definitions. For example you said:<BR/>"I don't know which portions of which "classical Lutheran and Reformed Creeds" you have in mind, and I don't know what you mean by "the only option". But I wouldn't agree with any source claiming that belief in imputed righteousness is necessary for a person to be justified."<BR/><BR/>I responded by telling you the classical creeds like Westminster would not allow refusal of imputation and still consider that orthodox Protestant theology. I wasnt so much concerned with the citation as I was the affirmation you adhered to the Westminster. I was wrong to assume Triablogue is concerned with carrying on the legacy of the first Protestants as they taught them in their creeds.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Any reader can go look at your earliest posts there and see you repeatedly make references to "justification", "imputed righteousness", etc. without any accompanying citation of something like the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>Nick: That is misleading. I made reference to imputation being essential and mentioned documents like Westminster and Concord in the same sentences/contexts. To say I wasn't making a citation is misleading considering people like you should know what Westminster says, I shouldnt have to give you, a well informed Protestant, explicit quotes on what the Westminster says on imputation. I told you the Westminster says imputation is essential, I would assume you know there is a chapter in the Westminster titled "Justification" that talks about imputation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: How do you know that "Protestants" get their definition from "the say-so of the Reformers"?<BR/><BR/>Nick: LOL. Because I have done a lexical analysis in my justification article (on my profile webpage) and I demonstrate clearly that imputing an alien status doesnt fit the Biblical evidence. On top of that I quote people like John Calvin defining terms like "impute" but I show his reasoning is flawed and eisegesis. There is NO WAY you or any other Protestant could approach Scripture as unbiased as possible and pull out imputed righteousness from Scripture unless you were trained to read it INTO the Bible. The Biblical FACT is that when the term for "impute" is used in Scripture only a small percentage of references mean imputing an alien status, the largest percentage (by far) in the OT and NT refer to recognizing the actual status of something. And the Protestant authors I have read who actually address the term "impute" either deliberately or ignorantly dont address the full usage of "impute" in Scripture.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: I've addressed some of these issues in the other thread, but I'm not interested in meeting your standards for what qualifies as not "wasting each other's time". Your standards keep changing, and I'm more concerned with helping the other readers of this thread than I am in carrying out a discussion according to your criteria.<BR/><BR/>Nick: My standards only changed in so far as I attempted to get clarification of what I ORIGINALLY thought was assumed true (eg that Triablogue's leaders closely adhered to classical Protestant Creeds).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: I was addressing the issue of why somebody should accept Catholic documents as authoritative to begin with. An "outsider", as you put it, wouldn't limit himself to Catholic documents when making that judgment. The point is that a personal interpretation of evidence, including evidence that isn't in the form of something like a creed or council, would be involved.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Sure a seeker/outsider would look at all the sources at their disposal, but Creeds are indispensable to see how one group understands certain teachings of Scripture, and that seeker can decide if there is enough evidence to decide to adhere to a given Creed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: You're missing the point. The principles involved in my Christological example are applicable to other issues as well, such as justification. Why would you think it's relevant to respond to my example by saying that you weren't addressing Christological issues? It doesn't seem that you're giving much thought to the issues involved before you post your responses.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I must have misunderstood your point. I went back and looked at your original comment and it was in response to me talking about checking the Westminster to see if a Protestant was being faithful to it. Your question: "We have no creed or council that explains the beliefs held by a church father such as Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr. Does it therefore follow that we have no way of knowing whether you're being faithful to what those fathers taught?"<BR/>Since there were no councils for Ignatius and Justin we can go directly to their writings, but in the case of the Reformers and the Reformation as a movement, groups of Protestant theologians got together and dogmatized what they considered the essentials. At that point Protestantism was defined according to whatever Protestant Creed you adhered to and not any given writing or comment by an individual Reformer. There is stuff Luther himself said/taught that the Book of Concord either ignores or does not agree with, yet if you want to consider yourself a "Lutheran" (faithful follower of Luther) you historically must have adhered to the Book of Concord.<BR/>Sure you can read everything Luther every wrote and write up a perfect summary and consider yourself "Lutheran" on that basis, but historically (from the start) those groups called Lutheran adhered to Concord.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Why am I supposed to let you define what's a "real issue"? Objecting that my comments on baptism didn't define my view of imputation doesn't change the fact that my comments on baptism defined a portion of what I believe about justification. Therefore, it's erroneous for you to keep claiming that I've been using "mere phrases" without giving any definition to my terminology.<BR/><BR/>Nick: But "a portion" of what you believe is still a very incomplete picture, especially considering good historical definitions exist. I could AGREE justification is by faith alone apart from baptism, but I can still hold a radically different understanding of justification, that is what you fail to realize. THAT is why the concept/term "justification" needs to be defined. And it isnt ME determining what the real issue is, it is the classical Protestant Creeds.<BR/><BR/>I could go around saying I adhere to Sola Scripture but have a different number of books in my Bible, that is why a definition of Sola Scriptura requires defining what books constitute Scripture. You going around saying you believe in justification by faith alone apart from baptism is similar to saying you adhere to Sola Scriptura apart from Tradition. But if you dont define "justification" (imputed or infused?) and "Scripture" (66 books or 73?) you have given a very incomplete and ultimately unhelpful definition of "JbyFA" and "Sola Scriptura" (when a perfectly fine definition already exists). And APART from a definition you leave those terms up to be defined by the individual who can then embrace a definition contrary to your understanding.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: You keep misrepresenting what people have written in response to you. I didn't say that there are "1 Billion options", and I didn't say anything about "turning directly to the Scriptures and having the right understanding the first time". I said that billions of people disagree with you on issues like who God is and whether Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. And I asked how you know that you're correct on such issues. How do you get from those comments I made to your portrayal of my comments quoted above?<BR/><BR/>Nick: I hope you are not making a stink over whether we were dealing with "1 billion" versus "billions".<BR/>Out of the billions of people who disagree (meaning there could be billions of different opinions out there) how do I know I am correct on a given issue? All I can do is take a look at the evidence I have access to and come to a conclusion. You would have to do the same thing. I dont recall ever saying we didnt each have to look individually at the evidence. YET when I imposed the same demand of knowing you were right out of the billions of voices out there you said that is irrelevant since you are not using the same fallacious arguments, which merely ducks the question which you impose on me. Your ducking of the same demand led me to think you must be able to get it right the first time. Catholics dont have a problem with privately looking at the evidence, they have a problem with what is called "private interpretation" which means a Christian not in authority interpreting and imposing their own doctrines on others.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: The fact that you're having a discussion with a Protestant doesn't prove that the principles you would apply in a discussion with a non-Protestant are irrelevant. If you criticize a Protestant for "going his own way" by following his personal interpretation of the evidence, yet you rely on your own interpretation of the evidence when choosing to accept Catholicism rather than other belief systems, then you're criticizing Protestants for doing something that you do.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Not quite. The Catholic side is not a circular argument while the Protestant side is. The Catholic side starts with the premise (could be wrong, but that is not circular) that the Church Jesus established never was lost and thus it is the duty of men to track it down. It is my duty to look at the available evidence and see which Church best fits that evidence. Of course you are free to believe the Church Jesus established failed somewhere along the road, but that raises significant problems. One of the first and easiest questions to ask is does the group you are looking into simply make the claim of being the one and only Church Jesus established and must be obeyed. You would be surprised how many Protestant denominations wont make such a claim, this isnt even about proving the claim but simply making the claim. But if the group wont make even the claim then I can count them out off the bat. The two major groups which make that claim are the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics.<BR/><BR/>Protestants on the other hand start off with the premise that the Bible is inerrant and sufficient for all doctrine touching matters of salvation. The problem with that is they have no way of defining the canon of Scripture, the Bible itself, apart from an extra-Biblical statement, thus they have built their foundation on a circular argument. Further, they claim nobody can infallibly interpret the Scriptures, yet without that power you have no way of defining dogma leaving each person free to define what they choose (not to mention denominations regularly make the equivalent of dogmatic statements but just dont realize it).<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is my last response on this thread to you. I will continue this last private interpretation issue on another new thread if you wish and I will try to get to your recent Lk 18 thread.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92220744831019572642008-05-23T20:27:00.000-04:002008-05-23T20:27:00.000-04:00NICK SAID:“You have to accept at least its chapter...NICK SAID:<BR/><BR/>“You have to accept at least its chapters on soteriology if you want to claim you are faithful to the Reformer's understanding of SF.”<BR/><BR/>i) That doesn’t mean I submit to the WCF as an authority source. Rather, it only means that I generally think the WCF is an accurate summary of Biblical doctrine.<BR/><BR/>ii) I have never attempted to systematically compare my understanding of sola fide with the Reformers. My knowledge of Reformed theology comes from further downstream—from theologians like Helm, Warfield, Cunningham, &c. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, I only subscribe to Reformed theology because it coincides with exegetical theology. *That’s* the authority source. Not Calvin or the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>“Do you have any articles you have written with your critiques of those official Catholic documents/teachings?”<BR/><BR/>There’s tons of stuff in the archives.<BR/><BR/>“So you are saying if the Reformer's view of justification was shown to be wrong you would have no problem remaining Protestant?”<BR/><BR/>Correct. Protestant theology doesn’t rise or fall on one doctrine. The common thread in Protestant theology is, or ought to be, revelation.<BR/><BR/>“If the Catholic understanding of justification was demonstrated to be wrong then I would not remain Catholic.”<BR/><BR/>That’s because Catholicism is predicated on a divine teaching office. If extraordinary magisterial teaching were false, that would falsify, not only the particular teaching, but the teaching office in general.<BR/><BR/>“You cant ‘break away’ from an apostate group because error can only beget error.”<BR/><BR/>You can break away from an apostate body if you have a criterion of truth in divine revelation (i.e. the Bible).<BR/><BR/>“IF the Church Jesus established never went apostate...”<BR/><BR/>The church is a divine institution. It cannot apostatize. But Christian institutions can—and do. <BR/><BR/>“The term ‘denomination’ is wrong and improper, it indicates division in the Church.”<BR/><BR/>There were divisions within NT churches founded and supervised by the apostles. Was the Corinthian church a false church? <BR/><BR/>“If someone thinks that their denomination is as good as or just as acceptable as any other denomination.”<BR/><BR/>Some denominations are not as good or just as acceptable as any others. Denominations range along a continuum of fidelity and infidelity.<BR/><BR/>“Is the church invisible or something?”<BR/><BR/>The church is instantiated in varying degrees in time and place—like a shade of color. <BR/><BR/>“In the New Testament we see a very visible Church with Bishops and even a Council.”<BR/><BR/>The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses also have visible officials and visible institutions. Visibility is hardly a mark of the true church.<BR/><BR/>Even in Catholic ecclesiology, visibility isn’t a mark of the true church. What makes an ordination valid is not a visible property. You can’t “see” if an ordination is valid. What makes a sacrament valid is not a visible property. You can’t “see” if a sacrament is valid. You can’t tell whether Benedict XVI is a Pope or Anti-Pope by merely looking at him. The Real Presence is not a visible property.<BR/><BR/>All the constitutive properties of the true church which you, as a Catholic define it, are imperceptible (indeed, indetectible) properties. <BR/><BR/>“The only option is to track down and join that remnant.”<BR/><BR/>You don’t have to join what you are. <BR/><BR/>“You would have to give some solid examples of this claim that Modernism (as defined/condemned by Papal documents) crept in.”<BR/><BR/>There are many examples. When you have popes appointing liberals like Joseph Fitzmyer and the late Ray Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, that implies papal approval for the historical-critical method—an explicit reversal of papal policy under Pius IX and Leo XIII. <BR/><BR/>Another example would be Cardinal Koenig’s speech at Vatican II, which persuaded the Council to refrain from reaffirming the Church’s traditional commitment to the plenary inspiration of Scripture.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67155885782555887462008-05-23T14:25:00.000-04:002008-05-23T14:25:00.000-04:00The conversation on the parable of the Tax Collect...The conversation on the parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee has moved over to this Triablogue thread:<BR/><BR/><B><A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/luke-18-and-roman-catholic-desperation.html#comments" REL="nofollow"> Luke 18 and Roman Catholic Desperation </A></B>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26364679203900057952008-05-23T14:10:00.000-04:002008-05-23T14:10:00.000-04:00See Catholics vs. Protestants on Justification for...See <A HREF="http://dmitrychernikov.com/blog/2008/05/23/justification/" REL="nofollow">Catholics vs. Protestants on Justification</A> for my take on it.Dmitry Chernikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17374123626811596925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44435030783619016782008-05-23T04:28:00.000-04:002008-05-23T04:28:00.000-04:00Dmitry,Thanks for you answer and question.The purp...Dmitry,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for you answer and question.<BR/>The purpose of faith is to be the conduit through which the grace of God flows to the believer. True faith is the realisation that one is at enmity with God, is deserving of the wrath of God and understands that apart from God's grace alone, he can do nothing. This faith is a gift of God for the natural man can not have it apart from God's grace. He is spiritually discerned,(1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.)<BR/><BR/>When one believes God through faith, He is declared righteous,(Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.")<BR/><BR/>Abraham believed or had faith and was counted to him (imputed to him) by God,as righteous. He believed God would so what He said--redeem Him and make a great nation out of him. He had a future hope. Today , in the fullness of time, Christ has come to fulfill those promises and bring peace to His people. We do not do it. He does. From beginning to end , salvation is a work of the Lord.We do respond and work out our salvation , but even in that we are working out what God has already worked in. This is sanctification. This is after God has declared is righteous whereby we the have the Holy Spirit to help us in this work. But again, it is God who both works in us to will and to do.<BR/><BR/>When we have saving faith, we are imputed with Christ;s righteousness, not our own. God sees Christ when He looks at us. While we are still sinners , we have been freed from the curse of the law, which condemned us. So while we still sin as we are being sanctified into an actual Christ-likeness, those sins are not credited to us(imputed). Christ has bore the penalty for those sins. We are free and if Christ makes you free, you are free indeed. Not free to sin, but free from the power of sin, free from the curse of sin (eternal separation) and free to follow Christ. The Epistles are an exhortation to do just that. It is possible to walk in the flesh after being saved and thus the command and exhortation to walk in the Spirit. The assurance of salvation comes when one walks in the Spirit. There is no assurance when when walks in sin---in fact, it is possible to not even have saving faith if one habitually walks in sin---commits gross sins as you alluded to earlier.<BR/><BR/>I know it seems somewhat paradoxical--people still able to sin but yet saved. But as a true believer, your heart is against sin. You do not sin willingly, without any pangs of conscience and restlessness against Him who saves. That is the way unbelievers sin-without fear(reverence) of God. They may feel guilty because of fear or position but not because they have grieved their Lord. This only the believer has. It is His spirit witnessing to ours that we are at peace with God.<BR/><BR/>You seem to focus on the negative ie that if we know we are saved then we can sin all we want and still be holy. The fact is if you are saved you will not desire to do that. You have been changed. Sin does not reign in you. You still may sin because we wrestle with the remnant of the "old man" nature that still resides and does not die easily. That is why we have to "die to Christ" crucify the flesh continuously.This is called sanctification. There is the sense we are sanctified (set apart) first. That is in election which is before the foundation of the world, whereby God sets apart (elects) those that will be His, (Jacob I loved-Essau I hated.)God chose Abraham, Issac, Jacob. He chose Moses. He chose Jeremiah, David etc Not after they were born, but before time began.<BR/><BR/>We need to rightly divide the Word of God. Sometimes Scripture speaks to us as participants, which we are. We are responsible and have a responsibility to God and man. But God is also sovereign and He tells us that also, (Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.} (Php 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.) <BR/><BR/>We do nothing unless God says so. We do not even breathe. This is what we must realise. This takes away any self reliance. This helps the believer understand that he is "in Christ" and without that there is nothing. This is called providence.We do not know what God has ordained in our life, but we do know that no matter what, God has ordained all to come to pass and He is working all things to the god to those who are called by His name.<BR/><BR/>So faith is a gift of God, given to us whom He has enlightened (regenerated)whereby we then see our need and condition, cry out to God for mercy. Upon that we are declared righteous and have peace with God. There is not a step one step two process that we notice. It happens simultaneously to us, though there is an order. Then we are given the Helper (Spirit)to guide us into all truth. We obey because we love and it is who we are "in Christ". Though our sins be as scarlet, yet they will be white as snow.If the Son sets you free, you will be frr indeed. That is amazing grace and it is truly a sweet sweet sound.<BR/><BR/>I hope this makes some sense, as I was awakeded at 3:30 this morning for no apparent reason. I am still half asleep. Maybe God wanted me to write this. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>FredFredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05883322174273236465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19544689835667793342008-05-22T23:51:00.000-04:002008-05-22T23:51:00.000-04:00So, what's the core doctrine here? That as soon as...So, what's the core doctrine here? That as soon as you realize through faith that your sins are forgiven and, in fact, have always been forgiven through Christ's actions, then you are essentially enlightened and can commit no sin; or if you do commit a sin, it is immediately forgiven and the situation is as if you never sinned. So, no matter how much evil you do, you remain holy and a child of God. Is that correct? Is the purpose of faith therefore merely peace of mind, the contentment resulting from the belief that you will not be condemned, no matter what?Dmitry Chernikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17374123626811596925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34514315529829855192008-05-22T23:08:00.000-04:002008-05-22T23:08:00.000-04:00"Isn't it strange that Jesus is turned into a auto..."Isn't it strange that Jesus is turned into a automatic sin-forgiver? Suppose you murder somebody. As you pull the trigger, you say to yourself: "Jesus, I remind you that I have faith in you and thus to forgive this sin to me. It is owed to me. And if I am now aggravating my sin through presumption, you have to forgive that, too."<BR/><BR/>>To answer this I will say yes (with a huge qualification), you would be forgiven---except, you have the mind of Christ as a saved person so you would not think that way. It is sinful to even think that way. Do not test the Lord your God. Do we sin so grace may abound? No! Not if we are truly saved. Our desire is to please God, not sin. But if we do sin we have an advocate. Let us not forget that God chastises those that disobey. But we are not condemned for there is now no condemnation. You are setting up a straw man argument and show a lack of the Protestant understanding of grace,regeneration, faith, forgiveness and the substitutionary work of Christ.<BR/><BR/>Also it was posted:" "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Lk 18:14) Humbling oneself is a work, as well, which apparently requires not only internal self-abnegation but also an action:"<BR/><BR/>>He who humbles himself brings nothing to the table. Just because he beat on his chest does not constitute a "work". That is a pedalogically stretched assertion. The humbling is a reaction, not an action. The humbling is an act of God, whereby He regenerates the man by taking his heart of stone out and putting in a heart of flesh, causing the man to admit His state of sin and that he can do nothing to merit grace (humble). This causes him to cry out to God alone, in faith alone that Christ alone can save him apart from any works and thus is justified whereby he is sealed with the Spirit unto good works (sanctification), whereby his life is being transformed into the image of Christ. He has the mind of Christ and is adopted into the family of God.<BR/><BR/>We as the redeemed do not think as you proposed. If one does, then he needs to test himself to see if he is indeed in Christ. He just may be a false professor.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05883322174273236465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78143209411456623532008-05-22T22:17:00.000-04:002008-05-22T22:17:00.000-04:00There are a lot of problems with Dmitry Chernikov'...There are a lot of problems with Dmitry Chernikov's post above, but I want to respond to the following:<BR/><BR/>"In the final analysis, how can God know if you are sincere in your faith?"<BR/><BR/>God is omniscient. He doesn't need to wait for outward works in order to know what occurs in the heart (Acts 15:8). In Acts 15, Peter is referring to the events of Acts 10, where believers received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized. Similarly, it would be implausible to suggest that the tax collector in Luke 18 was baptized in the temple. Arguing that the tax collector's humility, for example, is a work doesn't reconcile the passage with Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that it's normative for people to be justified at the time they attain humility. In Roman Catholic theology, you can have faith, humility, and other good attributes, yet remain unjustified until the time of your baptism. Protestants don't deny that those who are justified have attributes such as faith and humility. Nothing in Luke 18 is inconsistent with a Protestant view of how people are normally justified. But the passage is inconsistent with a Roman Catholic view of normative justification. The same can be said of many other passages of scripture. The Bible repeatedly refers to people being justified as soon as they come to faith rather than having to wait until baptism or some other work is later added to their faith (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, 19:2, etc.). Never does a person come to faith, then have to wait until the addition of some later work before being justified.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3149399074560511802008-05-22T21:54:00.000-04:002008-05-22T21:54:00.000-04:00Nick said:"You didnt 'correct misrepresentations' ...Nick said:<BR/><BR/>"You didnt 'correct misrepresentations' because the discussion never progressed beyond the phrase 'JbyFA'. To MY recollection you gave nothing in the form of Scripture or links talking about Imputed Righteousness."<BR/><BR/>Justification involves more than imputed righteousness. I discussed some of the other issues involved, so even without any discussion of imputed righteousness, it's erroneous to claim that I "never progressed beyond the phrase 'JbyFA'". And when an Evangelical posting in a context like this one tells you that he believes in imputed righteousness, it doesn't make sense for you to act as if you need "Scripture or links" to determine what that person most likely has in mind. You haven't given us citations of Roman Catholic documents every time you've made references to your theology. Should we conclude that you've given us "mere phrases" every time you haven't provided such documentation?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"And time and again I made it clear that if imputed righteousness was not in the picture that was NOT the same Sola Fide the Reformers were defending."<BR/><BR/>Which is irrelevant to what I was discussing. I explained why I was distinguishing between imputed righteousness and other issues.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"This paragraph is precisely why I said this discussion between you and me both there and here is going nowhere."<BR/><BR/>Then why do you keep posting responses?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"With the standards you imposed above I dont see how anything at all can be addressed and interpreted without defining each and every term from scratch."<BR/><BR/>How is my position that I don't have to cite something like the Westminster Confession equivalent to "defining each and every term from scratch"?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Creeds and other such documents are important precisely because the authority they hold for defining terms and concepts. Without them life would be just as difficult as not having access to a dictionary, and worse yet each man would and could define terms as they pleased."<BR/><BR/>Definitions of terms can come from a lot of sources, not just a source like a creed or council. You refer to dictionaries, for example, and none of us even need a dictionary, much less a creed or council ruling, to understand each other's posts.<BR/><BR/>Here's my first sentence in the first post I wrote in response to you:<BR/><BR/>"The concept of imputed righteousness is correct and important, but it's not the same issue as whether justification is received through faith alone." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/courage-to-be-protestant-david-f-wells.html)<BR/><BR/>I made that comment in response to something you said about the reformers' belief in imputed righteousness. The context was the traditional Protestant understanding of imputed righteousness. I affirmed that such an understanding of imputed righteousness is "correct and important". Why, then, would you need me to go on to cite something like the Westminster Confession in order to know anything about how I view imputed righteousness? Your claim that I only gave you "mere phrases", without <I>any</I> information defining those phrases, is absurd. It was clear, from the first sentence I wrote in response to you, that I agree with a traditional Protestant understanding of imputed righteousness.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Your question on Baptism are answered very quickly once we define whether justification is by imputed grace or infused. If it is by imputed then of course a follow up Baptism plays no role in justification because the imputed grace is already received by faith."<BR/><BR/>You keep changing the subject. The fact that settling the issue of imputation would address my comments about baptism doesn't change the fact that I did make comments about baptism that give some definition to my view of justification. Therefore, it's erroneous for you to claim that my view of justification wasn't given any definition.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Citing the Westminster Confession would have gotten to the heart of the issue immediately, and if you wont be bound to the WCF definition then we shouldnt waste each other's time."<BR/><BR/>I told you that I agree with the traditional Protestant concept of imputed righteousness. In the other thread, you asked me to cite a creed that I submit to as an authority. As I've explained to you repeatedly, I can agree with the large majority of what a Lutheran or Calvinist creed states, including its affirmation of imputed righteousness, without agreeing with it entirely. You're now shifting the discussion to whether I can cite a <I>definition within</I> a source such as the Westminster Confession. I never denied that I agree with some portions of the Westminster Confession. But I don't submit to it as an authority in the sense you suggested in the previous thread.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"If the WCF says not by infusion and Trent says it is by infusion then that is a good start."<BR/><BR/>And when I tell you that I agree with the traditional Protestant view of imputation, I tell you that I believe that justification is received prior to baptism, I cite Biblical passages that reflect my view, etc. that's <I>not</I> "a good start"? I haven't given you <I>any</I> definition of my view? I'm just giving you "mere phrases"?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"If what you are going to tell me can be summed up in the WCF then you need not waste your breath telling me what the WCF already does."<BR/><BR/>You keep asserting that a source like the Westminster Confession needs to be cited, yet you made no such citation in your earliest posts in the other thread. Here's the other thread:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/courage-to-be-protestant-david-f-wells.html<BR/><BR/>Any reader can go look at your earliest posts there and see you repeatedly make references to "justification", "imputed righteousness", etc. without any accompanying citation of something like the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The word 'impute' in both the Old and New Testament has been understood by Protestants to mean imputing an alien status. They take this definition at the say-so of the Reformers and not through a genuine lexical analysis of the term."<BR/><BR/>How do you know that "Protestants" get their definition from "the say-so of the Reformers"?<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"I have been under the impression you dont accept the definitions of justification as taught by a historical Protestant Creed. And by accept I mean any definition of justification not in line with those creeds is unorthodox and unacceptable for a Protestant. If that is the stand you take then we can move forward, if you are not willing to take that stand then we shoulndt waste eachother's time on this issue."<BR/><BR/>I've addressed some of these issues in the other thread, but I'm not interested in meeting your standards for what qualifies as not "wasting each other's time". Your standards keep changing, and I'm more concerned with helping the other readers of this thread than I am in carrying out a discussion according to your criteria.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"An outsider cannot rightly condemn or accept Catholicism if they are not basing their decisions on official Church documents because anything else is attacking a strawman."<BR/><BR/>I was addressing the issue of why somebody should accept Catholic documents as authoritative to begin with. An "outsider", as you put it, wouldn't limit himself to Catholic documents when making that judgment. The point is that a personal interpretation of evidence, including evidence that <I>isn't</I> in the form of something like a creed or council, would be involved.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"If I say someone was not being faithful to the teaching of the Reformers I would not have in mind someone embracing a Christological heresy, I would have someone in mind with views on issues like justification not in line with the classical Protestant Creeds."<BR/><BR/>You're missing the point. The principles involved in my Christological example are applicable to other issues as well, such as justification. Why would you think it's relevant to respond to my example by saying that you weren't addressing Christological issues? It doesn't seem that you're giving much thought to the issues involved before you post your responses.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Saying justification is received through faith prior to Baptism doensnt answer the real issue of whether it is infused or imputed grace."<BR/><BR/>Why am I supposed to let you define what's a "real issue"? Objecting that my comments on baptism didn't define my view of imputation doesn't change the fact that my comments on baptism defined a portion of what I believe about justification. Therefore, it's erroneous for you to keep claiming that I've been using "mere phrases" without giving any definition to my terminology.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I dont follow, you were imposing the impossible task of having to check all 1 Billion options before coming to a conclusion of whether my interpretations are correct, yet you can turn directly to the Scriptures and have the right understanding the first time?"<BR/><BR/>You keep misrepresenting what people have written in response to you. I didn't say that there are "1 Billion options", and I didn't say anything about "turning directly to the Scriptures and having the right understanding the first time". I said that billions of people disagree with you on issues like who God is and whether Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church. And I asked how you know that you're correct on such issues. How do you get from those comments I made to your portrayal of my comments quoted above?<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Whether the others are right or wrong is irrelevant in this point because the issue is between Protestants and Catholics who already agree it is true."<BR/><BR/>The fact that you're having a discussion with a Protestant doesn't prove that the principles you would apply in a discussion with a non-Protestant are irrelevant. If you criticize a Protestant for "going his own way" by following his personal interpretation of the evidence, yet you rely on your own interpretation of the evidence when choosing to accept Catholicism rather than other belief systems, then you're criticizing Protestants for doing something that you do.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90835898837838460682008-05-22T21:52:00.000-04:002008-05-22T21:52:00.000-04:00OK, so you want to keep forgiveness of sins and sa...OK, so you want to keep forgiveness of sins and sanctification separate. That is a seemingly attractive hypothesis; this way the offices of the Son and the Holy Spirit remain distinct. Perhaps your past sins can be forgiven even if it is almost certain that you will sin in the future. In other words, even if you sin, you acquire no guilt.<BR/><BR/>But even on your own terms, faith is an infused theological virtue. And repentance and asking forgiveness are supernaturally meritorious as responses to grace. Repentance, for example, means rejection of evil, and rejection of evil entails a concomitant love for good and God, and that's charity. Asking forgiveness might obey Rom 8:26: "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." These are therefore "works," requiring proper feelings, thoughts, and actions. So, there is prior sanctification.<BR/><BR/>The parable continues: "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Lk 18:14) Humbling oneself is a work, as well, which apparently requires not only internal self-abnegation but also an action: "He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'" (13)<BR/><BR/>The traditional Catholic works of penance are prayer (which the tax collector did), fasting (we don't know about this one), and almsgiving (which he, too, did, because presumably he quit his job of stealing money from people "legally" for the state).<BR/><BR/>The Pharisee was not justified not because the works are useless or unnecessary but because he lacked the inner understanding of his sins. Similarly, dead faith fails to justify. We can make the case that both the internal faith <I>and</I> charity and good works are required. In the final analysis, how can God know if you are sincere in your faith? How can even you know? You have to prove your faith through action.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Do you agree with Luther that "If adultery could be committed in faith, it would not be a sin"? Isn't it strange that Jesus is turned into a automatic sin-forgiver? Suppose you murder somebody. As you pull the trigger, you say to yourself: "Jesus, I remind you that I have faith in you and thus to forgive this sin to me. It is owed to me. And if I am now aggravating my sin through presumption, you have to forgive <I>that</I>, too."Dmitry Chernikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17374123626811596925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38098304248493178712008-05-22T19:51:00.000-04:002008-05-22T19:51:00.000-04:00Nick, you're persistent.... persistently wrong tha...Nick, you're persistent.... persistently wrong that is. Since you're requesting to be rebuffed again, I shall oblige you yet again.<BR/><BR/>"[Jesus] further astounds His listeners with a parable that seems to place a detestable tax-gatherer in a better position spiritually than a praying Pharisee.<BR/><BR/>Jesus' point is clear. <B>He was teaching that justification is by faith alone.</B> All the theology of justification is there. But without delving into abstract theology, Jesus clearly painted the picture for us with a parable.<BR/><BR/><B>A Judicial Act of God</B><BR/><BR/>This tax-gatherer's justification was an instantaneous reality. There was no process, no time lapse, no fear of purgatory. He "went down to his house justified" (v. 14)—not because of anything he had done, but because of what had been done on his behalf.<BR/><BR/>Notice that the tax-collector understood his own helplessness. He owed an impossible debt he knew he could not pay. All he could do was repent and plead for mercy. Contrast his prayer with that of the arrogant Pharisee. He did not recite what he had done. He knew that even his best works were sin. He did not offer to do anything for God. He simply pleaded for divine mercy. He was looking for God to do for him what he could not do for himself. That is the very nature of the penitence Jesus called for.<BR/><BR/><B>By Faith Alone</B><BR/><BR/><B>Furthermore, this man went away justified without performing any works of penance, without doing any sacrament or ritual, without any meritorious works whatsoever. <I>His justification was complete without any of those things, because it was solely on the basis of faith.</I></B> Everything necessary to atone for his sin and provide forgiveness had already been done on his behalf. He was justified by faith on the spot.<BR/><BR/>Again, he makes a stark contrast with the smug Pharisee [Catholic], who was so certain that all his fasting and tithing and other works made him acceptable to God. But while the working Pharisee remained unjustified, the believing tax-gatherer received full justification by faith alone.<BR/><BR/><B>An Imputed Righteousness</B><BR/><BR/>Remember Jesus' statement from the Sermon on the Mount, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20)? Yet now He states that this tax-gatherer—the most wicked of men—was justified! How did such a sinner obtain a righteousness that exceeded that of the Pharisee? If the standard is divine perfection (v. 48), how could a traitorous tax-collector ever become just in God's eyes?<BR/><BR/>The only possible answer is that he received a righteousness that was not his own (cf. Phil. 3:9). Righteousness was imputed to him by faith (Rom. 4:9-11).<BR/><BR/>Whose righteousness was reckoned to him? It could only be the perfect righteousness of a flawless Substitute, who in turn must bear the tax-gatherer's sins and suffer the penalty of God's wrath in his place. And the gospel tells us that is precisely what Jesus did.<BR/><BR/>The tax-gatherer was justified. God declared him righteous, imputing to him the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving him of all unrighteousness, and delivering him from all condemnation. Forever thereafter he stood before God on the ground of a perfect righteousness that had been reckoned to his account.<BR/><BR/>That is what justification means. It is the only true gospel.<BR/><BR/>As soon as justification is fused with sanctification, works of righteousness become an essential part of the process. Faith is thus diluted with works. Sola fide is abandoned. This was the error of the Galatian legalists (cf. Gal. 2:16; 5:4). Paul called it "a different gospel" (Gal. 1:6, 9). The same error is found in virtually every false cult. <B>It's the main error of Roman Catholicism.</B>"<BR/><BR/>From Pastor John MacArthur: <A HREF="http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sf-solafide.htm" REL="nofollow"> Jesus' Perspective on Sola Fide </A>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83329192664538906962008-05-22T19:45:00.000-04:002008-05-22T19:45:00.000-04:00Jason: You're repeating misrepresentations I corre...Jason: You're repeating misrepresentations I corrected in the previous thread. When I describe what I believe about justification, cite passages of scripture in support of my view, and give you links to articles in which I've discussed the subject, it's unreasonable for you to respond by claiming that I'm "concerned with the mere phrase 'Justification by Faith Alone'". You've been corrected on this point more than once. You're either careless or dishonest.<BR/><BR/>Nick: You didnt "correct misrepresentations" because the discussion never progressed beyond the phrase "JbyFA". To MY recollection you gave nothing in the form of Scripture or links talking about Imputed Righteousness. If you did please give a sample quote by you at the time which directly addressed imputed righteousness taught in Scripture and in the links you gave. <BR/><BR/>Doing a quick word search you made comments like this: "A person can believe in justification through faith alone without believing in imputed righteousness or can affirm the former without commenting on the latter."<BR/><BR/>And time and again I made it clear that if imputed righteousness was not in the picture that was NOT the same Sola Fide the Reformers were defending. <BR/><BR/>Steve would agree with my claim here, as he also saw problems with documents like ECT which mention Catholics and Protesants both believe in Justification by Faith but the REALITY is we mean very differing things by that phrase.<BR/><BR/>You made other comments like these: "I don't deny that the reformers taught imputed righteousness <B>in addition to</B> justification through faith alone. But they're two different concepts, and scripture only defines one of the two as essential."<BR/><BR/>YOU were approaching the previous discussion on the grounds of whether imputation was essential while I was approaching that conversation on the grounds of whether imputation was a true doctrine. We were talking past each other THERE and the same thing is being carried over HERE.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: That's another argument I've already addressed. People often disagree over what was meant by a creed or a council. Your fellow Roman Catholics often disagree with one another about what was meant by a statement made by the Council of Trent or the Second Vatican Council, for example. And if a historical document such as the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed is going to be considered an objective standard, despite the existence of some disagreements over the document's meaning, why can't the same be said of scripture? And <B>if you want a definition of somebody's view of justification, why not ask that person for a definition in his own words? The concept that I would need to cite a creed in order to define my terms is ridiculous.</B> Furthermore, I never said or suggested that I don't agree with any Protestant authority on issues like imputed righteousness. Rather, since I'm not a Lutheran or Calvinist, I wouldn't claim agreement with Lutheran and Calvinist creeds on every issue. It doesn't therefore follow that I don't agree with those creeds on any of the issues you've raised, such as imputed righteousness.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nick: This paragraph is precisely why I said this discussion between you and me both there and here is going nowhere. With the standards you imposed above I dont see how anything at all can be addressed and interpreted without defining each and every term from scratch. <BR/><BR/>The part in bold above might be how your approach theology, but it isnt how I approach theology. Creeds and other such documents are important precisely because the authority they hold for defining terms and concepts. <BR/>Without them life would be just as difficult as not having access to a dictionary, and worse yet each man would and could define terms as they pleased. <BR/><BR/>If you are not going to accept the definition of justification AS TAUGHT BY the Westminster Confession (or similar historical document) then we should not waste each other's time. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Let's take one example of what I wrote in the other thread. I explained that I believe that justification is received at the time a person comes to faith, even if the person hasn't yet been baptized. When I explain my view in that manner, are you suggesting that you still don't know anything about what I believe? My explanation is just a "mere phrase" (as you put it earlier) that doesn't do anything to distinguish between one view of justification and another? Why would I need to cite something like a creed in order to explain my view of an issue such as whether a person has to be baptized in order to be justified?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nick: I dont have the time or energy to go learning every variation of justification out there, worse yet having to learn it through the "guess and check" method where I spend my time writing what I think you believe and then having to wait and see whether I was correct and having to repeat the process indefinitely. <BR/><BR/>The fundamental problem with your questions right here is that it refuses to get to the heart of the issue immediately, and instead goes about it the longest way possible, by a process of elimination rather than a single direct definition. Your question on Baptism are answered very quickly once we define whether justification is by imputed grace or infused. If it is by imputed then of course a follow up Baptism plays no role in justification because the imputed grace is already received by faith.<BR/><BR/>Citing the Westminster Confession would have gotten to the heart of the issue immediately, and if you wont be bound to the WCF definition then we shouldnt waste each other's time.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: As if I can't explain that fact myself, without citing the Westminster Confession? If you're so unable to understand what other people tell you, without the citation of some accompanying authority such as a creed or council, then why are you participating in forums like this one? How can you understand what we're writing? How do you know what we mean if we aren't citing a council ruling to explain every sentence?<BR/><BR/>Nick: My answer is simple, important theological doctrines and discussions like these should never start from scratch. Either we are discussing the issues as they were passed on by our predecessors or else we are wasting our time re-inventing the wheel. If the WCF is orthodox in its definition on justification then you should have no problem agreeing to abiding by it rather than having me go out and learn from scratch what you think about Sola Fide. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Since I believe in the authority of scripture, and you've told Steve and others that you're willing to discuss scripture with them, why would you claim that I have no authority to appeal to? And you're aware that I can cite other authorities. There are many statements of faith, confessions, etc. that describe a view of justification, or imputed righteousness in particular, that I agree with. You've acknowledged that my denomination has a statement of faith, for example, even though you've objected that it's too vague (which is another illustration of the insufficiency of citing such sources). It's remarkable that you keep making such demonstrably false claims about how I allegedly have no prior authority, have only given you "mere phrases", etc.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Your illustration on insufficiency of sources is flawed. The reason why the historical Protestant Creeds are important is because they recognized the major issues and did their best to define what was acceptable and what was not. The statement of Faith you gave me of your denomination gave a vague/loose definition in comparison to say the WCF which cuts to the heart of the Catholic/Protestant dispute on justification.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: But then you go on to say, later in the same paragraph:<BR/>"I can tell if a given Protestant is being faithful to their predecessors."<BR/>How do you know that "a given Protestant is being faithful to their predecessors" if you don't discern the views of the Protestant you're interacting with? There's no way to avoid addressing the personal interpretations of the person you're interacting with. If that's too much for you, then don't get involved in these discussions.<BR/><BR/>Nick: The WCF is a REFERENCE point from which to build on, if the Protestant I am talking to is not being faithful to that reference point I know they are not being true to their predecessors and thus we cannot further the discussion. If they are faithful up to that reference point then we can go onto the important question of whether the Bible teaches justification according to that WCF definition.<BR/><BR/>That way Im not wasting my time, Im not engaging in a discussion blindly but have something as a reference. I'm here to meet at a reference point and build, Im not here to see a definition of justification derived from from scratch. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: All that you're doing is asserting, without argument, that whatever a source like Trent or the Catechism says is sufficient. In contrast to your unargued assertion, I would argue that it makes no sense to suggest that an individual in an online forum can't define his views for you as well as a statement from a council held a few hundred years ago. For one thing, I can give more space to an issue in a forum like this than you would get from a canon of Trent, for example.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, you object that my view of justification isn't clear enough if I don't cite a source like Trent to explain it. In fact, you even claim that my view has no definition, is just a "mere phrase", if I don't cite a source like Trent. On the other hand, you defend the brevity of sources like Trent on the basis that they had space limitations. If you're interested in clarity, why would you limit yourself to sources with such limitations?<BR/><BR/>I want to remind the readers that I have no objection to the citation of creeds, councils, statements of faith, etc. I can cite many such sources that put forward views that I agree with on an issue like imputed righteousness. The issue is whether such sources are as necessary and sufficient as Nick suggests. They aren't.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I never suggested these sources answered every single question imaginable. My point is that enough is said to build off of. If the WCF says not by infusion and Trent says it is by infusion then that is a good start. The purpose of Trent was to lay down parameters precisely because it would be impossible to answer every single issue that arose. <BR/><BR/>Quality always trumps quantity. If a established definition of a few paragraphs can say the same thing as numerous multi-paragraph exchanges I will stick with the shorter established definition. If what you are going to tell me can be summed up in the WCF then you need not waste your breath telling me what the WCF already does. If what you are going to tell me does not mesh with the WCF then I would question your fidelity to classical Protestant standards and place my bets on the WCF as the more fruitful path.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: No, it's not that simple, but even if we were to accept your characterization, what's the significance of "their credibility" if we're agreeing with the Protestant reformers primarily because of the evidence supporting their position, not because of "their credibility"?<BR/><BR/>Nick: The reason why Im here in the first place because I think the evidence for supporting their position is far weaker than the average Protestant realizes, which means more credence is given to the fact the Reformers taught it than whether it can be clearly found in Scripture. <BR/><BR/>To get a taste of what I'm talking about click on my profile and go to my justification article to the paragraph where John Calvin lays down his definition of "impute" (chashab in Hebrew) and you will see the definition given by the Reformers and accepted by Protestants today does not fit the Biblical evidence. <BR/> <BR/>The word "impute" in both the Old and New Testament has been understood by Protestants to mean imputing an alien status. They take this definition at the say-so of the Reformers and not through a genuine lexical analysis of the term.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Scripture is "no foundation"? The historical documents, statements of faith, creeds, etc. that I agree with are "no foundation"? Again, I'm not a Lutheran or a Calvinist, so I wouldn't claim complete agreement with a Lutheran or Calvinist creed, council, statement of faith, etc. But I do agree with them on most issues, including imputed righteousness, and I can cite other sources that I agree with, most significantly scripture. Why are my beliefs to be considered to have "no foundation"?<BR/><BR/>Nick: I have been under the impression you dont accept the definitions of justification as taught by a historical Protestant Creed. And by accept I mean any definition of justification not in line with those creeds is unorthodox and unacceptable for a Protestant. If that is the stand you take then we can move forward, if you are not willing to take that stand then we shoulndt waste eachother's time on this issue.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: You as a Roman Catholic can cite authorities you agree with, such as church councils, but people are going to ask you why they should accept those authorities. All of us have to give a justification for our beliefs beyond citing something like a creed or council.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Those are authorities I as a Catholic am bound to. I am not binding non-Catholics to those decisions. Those documents are references so I and others can see what the Catholic Church teaches. An outsider cannot rightly condemn or accept Catholicism if they are not basing their decisions on official Church documents because anything else is attacking a strawman. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: If Martin Luther affirmed the deity of Christ in some of his letters, for example, I don't have to agree with him on every other issue or agree with any Lutheran creed in its entirety in order for you to be able to conclude that I'm in agreement with Luther on the issue of the deity of Christ. We have no creed or council that explains the beliefs held by a church father such as Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr. Does it therefore follow that we have no way of knowing whether you're being faithful to what those fathers taught?<BR/><BR/>Nick: The deity of Christ is not a point of contention between Protestants and Catholics, so my words should be taken in the sense of the major issues Luther taught which are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. If I say someone was not being faithful to the teaching of the Reformers I would not have in mind someone embracing a Christological heresy, I would have someone in mind with views on issues like justification not in line with the classical Protestant Creeds.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: So, when I explain that I believe that justification is received through faith prior to baptism, you have no way of knowing what I believe about whether a person has to be baptized before being justified? The only way you could understand what I mean is if I cited something like a creed or council to explain my position? That's ridiculous. You've repeatedly made comments in our discussions without citing something like a creed to explain what you mean. You expect people to understand you without the citation of such sources. And you repeatedly responded to comments I made about scripture (Luke 18, etc.) without my citing a council ruling or confession to explain what I meant. Why did you do that, if the citing of such authorities is as significant as you claim?<BR/><BR/>Nick: As stated towards the start of this post this is an issue of re inventing the wheel. Saying justification is received through faith prior to Baptism doensnt answer the real issue of whether it is infused or imputed grace. Your comment is on the road to answering the grace issue, but there is no need to make that journey if the WCF already has the issue defined.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: There were Protestants who lived and died prior to the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>Nick: That was never my point, nor is my point that everything that came out of a Reformers mouth a binding statement. My point was that there came a point during the Reformation era where Protestant theologians, who were followers of the Reformers themselves, got together and laid out definitions which would be the standard by which to judge Reformed and Lutheran theology. Those documents are what I look to when trying to understand what the original Protestants believed. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: That's irrelevant, since I'm not using the same fallacious arguments you're using.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I dont follow, you were imposing the impossible task of having to check all 1 Billion options before coming to a conclusion of whether my interpretations are correct, yet you can turn directly to the Scriptures and have the right understanding the first time?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason: Protestants aren't the only people who disagree with you on the issues I mentioned. How do you know that Hindus, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, etc. are incorrect? You have to rely on your own interpretation of the data. What you've said in criticism of Evangelicals' reliance on personal interpretation is applicable to you and every other Roman Catholic as well.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Whether the others are right or wrong is irrelevant in this point because the issue is between Protestants and Catholics who already agree it is true. We both could be wrong, but that doesnt change the fact we researched and narrowed our conclusions to a choice between your side and mine.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85242115884646736122008-05-22T17:44:00.000-04:002008-05-22T17:44:00.000-04:00Truth Unites: No it's not. Gimme a break. It's a c...Truth Unites: No it's not. Gimme a break. It's a cheap shot on your part for accusing me of a cheap shot.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I wont spend time on this cheap shot issue any further. If I overstepped and offended you then I apologize and retract for those cheap shot comments. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Truth: Of course I am. Here's what you wrote: "I am convinced that the Biblical evidence not only does not support the Protestant idea of <B>imputed righteousness</B>, it actually directly contradicts it, and on top of that is perfectly in line with the Catholic position."<BR/><BR/>I am clearly interacting with your attacking assertion that the doctrine of Sola Fide is not supported by biblical evidence.<BR/><BR/>Nick: The comment which you quote is talking about the key aspect of the Protestant view of justification, "imputed righteousness" which your parable does not prove directly or indirectly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Truth: First, I only provided the link as reference for Bailey's quote and for the exegesis demonstrating that the parable clearly shows Jesus teaching justification by humble faith alone. The link was meant for nothing else. You choosing to interact with the author on other issues in his article was superfluous and unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I showed that author of the article had serious doctrinal problems throughout the article, that diminishes his credibility to be used as an authority for interpreting that parable. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Truth: Second, I was merely amused that the defense of Sola Fide was so easily obtained against your angry (and hopelessly ineffectual) attack upon it. Is a good defense now deemed as victory? If so, then yes, all adherents to the doctrine of Sola Fide can claim victory against those who would seek to undermine and dismantle it.<BR/><BR/>Nick: You are forgetting the heart of Sola Fide is imputed righteousness. You have not addressed the issue of imputed righteousness. So far you have only pointed out a parable which doesnt even mention faith and have not addressed the evidence I put forward regarding the way the Bible says grace is received through humility.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Truth: Nick, you're just repeating yourself, thinking that you've got a superior trump card. Well, I'll just repeat myself and overtrump you again:<BR/><BR/>Re-read Jesus' parable again carefully. The Pharisee took pride in his WORKS (fasting, tithing). In stark contrast the tax collector possessed the humility to know that all he had was FAITH, and FAITH ALONE.<BR/><BR/>Jesus taught justification by a humble faith alone: "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.<BR/>Q.E.D.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I am repeating myself because you are making the same mistakes. That parable NOWHERE attacks or denigrates or contrasts good works to faith, the parable nowhere mentions faith (both men already believed in God), your sentence just before "QED" leaves off the moral of the story "e veryone who exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted" in response to the opening line "To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else". Jesus is talking about self righteous people who look down on others, that has nothing to do with works or faith, it is about attitude. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Truth: Heh, heh, heh. Yes, it most certainly is. And it's a defectively weak case.<BR/><BR/>Don't confuse and conflate your "DIRECT" interaction as being the same as a convincing refutation. In fact, far from it. It's a losing refutation.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Address the issue of imputation or else you have no room to talk about defective. I showed you how the Scripture teaches the humble receive grace and it is not in the language of imputation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Truth: Second, as I've said before, no one asked you to interact with the link. I certainly didn't. In fact, I didn't even read your blather about the other items you took issue with. My only focus is upon Jesus and His teaching of justification by humble faith alone in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Well if you didnt read my comments you didnt see the doctrinal problems that the sources of your quotes/information contain.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34591583404400168552008-05-22T17:21:00.000-04:002008-05-22T17:21:00.000-04:00Steve: Actually, I have that problem with certain ...Steve: Actually, I have that problem with certain interfaith statements like ECT and The Gift of Salvation.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I agree. I have only read ECT but it makes problematic statements which give the impression there is little difference in definition when in fact there is.<BR/><BR/>Steve: True, the WCF is a good point of reference for defining sola fide.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Good. Now with that issue out of the way we can discuss whether the Bible teaches justification in the manner defined by the WCF.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: And what makes you think I treat the WCF as an authority source? I don’t.<BR/><BR/>Nick: You have to accept at least its chapters on soteriology if you want to claim you are faithful to the Reformer's understanding of SF. <BR/><BR/>Steve: You really need to drop the psychic routine. You don’t know me personally. You’re in no position to do these mini-biographies. Do you also practice palmistry?<BR/><BR/>Warfield said very little about Catholicism. And my primary knowledge of Catholic theology comes straight from the horse’s mouth—not mediated by Reformed theologians.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I wasnt psychoanalyzing you, I was merely pointing out that nobody approaches the Scriptures totally impartial. If you got your information on Catholic teaching from official Church documents that is good to hear, many dont do that. <BR/>Do you have any articles you have written with your critiques of those official Catholic documents/teachings? <BR/><BR/>Steve: This all-or-nothing reasoning is simplistic and reductionistic.<BR/><BR/>Nick: So you are saying if the Reformer's view of justification was shown to be wrong you would have no problem remaining Protestant? If the Catholic understanding of justification was demonstrated to be wrong then I would not remain Catholic.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: That verse has nothing to do with breaking away from an apostate denomination.<BR/><BR/>Nick: You cant "break away" from an apostate group because error can only beget error. It would be like breaking away from a rotten apple, the broken off piece is rotten as well. IF the Church Jesus established never went apostate (and I dont believe it did), you can never "break away" in the first place.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: Now you’re equivocating by equating “the Church” with “ a denomination,” which is not how Evangelicals argue in the first place. And I also don’t share your wooden concept of “the Church.”<BR/><BR/>Nick: The term "denomination" is wrong and improper, it indicates division in the Church. If someone thinks that their denomination is as good as or just as acceptable as any other denomination then they have serious problems to deal with, most especially how the complete Gospel can exist simultaneously in two conflicting groups.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: The church doesn’t have a unique address, any more than God has a unique address. You not going to find it by sticking a pushpin in the map.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Is the church invisible or something? In the New Testament we see a very visible Church with Bishops and even a Council. If there is no "unique address" then Christendom can only be a free for all. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: No, the alternative is to appreciate the Biblical doctrine of the remnant.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Im not aware of this doctrine. But if it implies that there are always genuine Christians on earth the idea of starting a new denomination and "breaking away" has to be out of the question. The only option is to track down and join that remnant.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: Under Pius IX and Leo XIII. But modernism hunkered down and outlived its enemies. Vatican II canonized an incremental version of modernism.<BR/><BR/>Nick: You would have to give some solid examples of this claim that Modernism (as defined/condemned by Papal documents) crept in.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48416993996221719242008-05-22T16:42:00.000-04:002008-05-22T16:42:00.000-04:00Nick said:"You need to remember though that I spen...Nick said:<BR/><BR/>"You need to remember though that I spent considerable time in that last discussion under the impression you adhered to classical Protestant theology, as defined by a classical Protestant confession of faith. Halfway through our discussion I realized we were talking past each other. I was directing my energy at a classically defined understanding of justification while your position turned out to be very loosely defined, you were concerned with the mere phrase 'Justification by Faith Alone' without being bound to a definition of it."<BR/><BR/>You're repeating misrepresentations I corrected in the previous thread. When I describe what I believe about justification, cite passages of scripture in support of my view, and give you links to articles in which I've discussed the subject, it's unreasonable for you to respond by claiming that I'm "concerned with the mere phrase 'Justification by Faith Alone'". You've been corrected on this point more than once. You're either careless or dishonest.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"That is why it is important to adhere to the Creeds and Decrees of the early Ecumenical Councils, so that when we use the term 'Son of God' and other similar terms we have a definition behind it."<BR/><BR/>That's another argument I've already addressed. People often disagree over what was meant by a creed or a council. Your fellow Roman Catholics often disagree with one another about what was meant by a statement made by the Council of Trent or the Second Vatican Council, for example. And if a historical document such as the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed is going to be considered an objective standard, despite the existence of some disagreements over the document's meaning, why can't the same be said of scripture? And if you want a definition of somebody's view of justification, why not ask that person for a definition in his own words? The concept that I would need to cite a creed in order to define my terms is ridiculous. Furthermore, I never said or suggested that I don't agree with any Protestant authority on issues like imputed righteousness. Rather, since I'm not a Lutheran or Calvinist, I wouldn't claim agreement with Lutheran and Calvinist creeds on <I>every</I> issue. It doesn't therefore follow that I don't agree with those creeds on <I>any</I> of the issues you've raised, such as imputed righteousness.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"It gives enough of a definition to make a distinction between what Justification by Faith Alone means versus what it doesnt."<BR/><BR/>Let's take one example of what I wrote in the other thread. I explained that I believe that justification is received at the time a person comes to faith, even if the person hasn't yet been baptized. When I explain my view in that manner, are you suggesting that you still don't know <I>anything</I> about what I believe? My explanation is just a "mere phrase" (as you put it earlier) that doesn't do <I>anything</I> to distinguish between one view of justification and another? Why would I need to cite something like a creed in order to explain my view of an issue such as whether a person has to be baptized in order to be justified?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The Westminster gives enough information to note the Catholic view is unacceptable."<BR/><BR/>As if I can't explain that fact myself, without citing the Westminster Confession? If you're so unable to understand what other people tell you, without the citation of some accompanying authority such as a creed or council, then why are you participating in forums like this one? How can you understand what we're writing? How do you know what we mean if we aren't citing a council ruling to explain every sentence?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"As for 'we would have to go back to a prior authority', the problem with that is there isnt a prior authority for you."<BR/><BR/>Since I believe in the authority of scripture, and you've told Steve and others that you're willing to discuss scripture with them, why would you claim that I have no authority to appeal to? And you're aware that I can cite other authorities. There are many statements of faith, confessions, etc. that describe a view of justification, or imputed righteousness in particular, that I agree with. You've acknowledged that my denomination has a statement of faith, for example, even though you've objected that it's too vague (which is another illustration of the insufficiency of citing such sources). It's remarkable that you keep making such demonstrably false claims about how I allegedly have no prior authority, have only given you "mere phrases", etc.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I dont have the time to learn every single variation and opinion every Protestant has"<BR/><BR/>But then you go on to say, later in the same paragraph:<BR/><BR/>"I can tell if a given Protestant is being faithful to their predecessors."<BR/><BR/>How do you know that "a given Protestant is being faithful to their predecessors" if you don't discern the views of the Protestant you're interacting with? There's no way to avoid addressing the personal interpretations of the person you're interacting with. If that's too much for you, then don't get involved in these discussions.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Trent and the Catechism define stuff as best they can (in a reasonable amount of space). There should be enough information given on any given subject (esp on Justification) that we shouldnt have to worry about gray areas."<BR/><BR/>All that you're doing is asserting, without argument, that whatever a source like Trent or the Catechism says is sufficient. In contrast to your unargued assertion, I would argue that it makes no sense to suggest that an individual in an online forum can't define his views for you as well as a statement from a council held a few hundred years ago. For one thing, I can give more space to an issue in a forum like this than you would get from a canon of Trent, for example.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, you object that my view of justification isn't clear enough if I don't cite a source like Trent to explain it. In fact, you even claim that my view has <I>no</I> definition, is just a "mere phrase", if I don't cite a source like Trent. On the other hand, you defend the brevity of sources like Trent on the basis that they had space limitations. If you're interested in clarity, why would you limit yourself to sources with such limitations? <BR/><BR/>I want to remind the readers that I have no objection to the citation of creeds, councils, statements of faith, etc. I can cite many such sources that put forward views that I agree with on an issue like imputed righteousness. The issue is whether such sources are as necessary and sufficient as Nick suggests. They aren't.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I never said it was all you had to go by, the point is, and this should be common sense, is that if someone in authority gets it wrong on an important subject their credibility is gone."<BR/><BR/>No, it's not that simple, but even if we were to accept your characterization, what's the significance of "their credibility" if we're agreeing with the Protestant reformers primarily because of the evidence supporting their position, not because of "their credibility"?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Here we go again. I cannot have a discussion with someone who has no foundation, because what ends up happening is trying to pin down a moving target."<BR/><BR/>Scripture is "no foundation"? The historical documents, statements of faith, creeds, etc. that I agree with are "no foundation"? Again, I'm not a Lutheran or a Calvinist, so I wouldn't claim complete agreement with a Lutheran or Calvinist creed, council, statement of faith, etc. But I do agree with them on most issues, including imputed righteousness, and I can cite other sources that I agree with, most significantly scripture. Why are my beliefs to be considered to have "no foundation"?<BR/><BR/>You as a Roman Catholic can cite authorities you agree with, such as church councils, but people are going to ask you why they should accept those authorities. All of us have to give a justification for our beliefs beyond citing something like a creed or council.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"THAT way, when I see you or any other Protestant teaching something that is not in harmony with say the Westminster, I have an objective source and means to know if that person is faithful to the first Protestants."<BR/><BR/>If Martin Luther affirmed the deity of Christ in some of his letters, for example, I don't have to agree with him on every other issue or agree with any Lutheran creed in its entirety in order for you to be able to conclude that I'm in agreement with Luther on the issue of the deity of Christ. We have no creed or council that explains the beliefs held by a church father such as Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr. Does it therefore follow that we have no way of knowing whether you're being faithful to what those fathers taught?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"You refuse to be bound by an authoritative document leaving you the freedom to always say Im wrong while I can never pin down your position and evaluate it to see whether it is wrong."<BR/><BR/>So, when I explain that I believe that justification is received through faith prior to baptism, you have no way of knowing what I believe about whether a person has to be baptized before being justified? The only way you could understand what I mean is if I cited something like a creed or council to explain my position? That's ridiculous. You've repeatedly made comments in our discussions without citing something like a creed to explain what you mean. You expect people to understand you without the citation of such sources. And you repeatedly responded to comments I made about scripture (Luke 18, etc.) without my citing a council ruling or confession to explain what I meant. Why did you do that, if the citing of such authorities is as significant as you claim?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"That is why I go to sources like the Westminster, so I can see what the original Reformed Protestants believed and compare that to the Biblical evidence and make my conclusion."<BR/><BR/>There were Protestants who lived and died prior to the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The same question could be turned around onto you versus 1 Billion"<BR/><BR/>That's irrelevant, since I'm not using the same fallacious arguments you're using.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I believe in God according to the definitions given from Nicea onwards. Protestants AGREE with those definitions. Thus I am not dealing with 1 billion interpretations because you already agree at least that much of what I believe is correct."<BR/><BR/>Protestants aren't the only people who disagree with you on the issues I mentioned. How do you know that Hindus, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, etc. are incorrect? You have to rely on your own interpretation of the data. What you've said in criticism of Evangelicals' reliance on personal interpretation is applicable to you and every other Roman Catholic as well.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8012774727198366302008-05-22T01:23:00.000-04:002008-05-22T01:23:00.000-04:00Nick: This is a cheap shot plain and simple.No it...<B>Nick</B>: <I>This is a cheap shot plain and simple.</I><BR/><BR/>No it's not. Gimme a break. It's a cheap shot on <I>your</I> part for accusing me of a cheap shot.<BR/><BR/><I>You are not interacting with the case I presented.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course I am. Here's what you wrote: "I am convinced that the Biblical evidence not only does not support the Protestant idea of imputed righteousness, it actually directly contradicts it, and on top of that is perfectly in line with the Catholic position."<BR/><BR/>I am clearly interacting with your attacking assertion that the doctrine of Sola Fide is not supported by biblical evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>I went over your links and claims and made my case, for you to not interact and claim victory is a cheap shot.</I><BR/><BR/>First, I only provided the link as reference for Bailey's quote and for the exegesis demonstrating that the parable clearly shows Jesus teaching justification by humble faith alone. The link was meant for nothing else. You choosing to interact with the author on other issues in his article was superfluous and unnecessary. <BR/><BR/>Second, I was merely amused that the defense of <I>Sola Fide</I> was so easily obtained against your angry (and hopelessly ineffectual) attack upon it. Is a good defense now deemed as victory? If so, then yes, all adherents to the doctrine of <I>Sola Fide</I> can claim victory against those who would seek to undermine and dismantle it.<BR/><BR/><I>The moral of the parable is pride versus humility NOT faith versus works, that is staying more faithful to the text than you are. Further the Bible explicitly says God gives more grace to the humble (which the tax collector was), but that is not the language of imputed grace but rather infused.</I><BR/><BR/>Nick, you're just repeating yourself, thinking that you've got a superior trump card. Well, I'll just repeat myself and overtrump you again:<BR/><BR/>"Re-read Jesus' parable again carefully. The Pharisee took <B>pride</B> in his WORKS (fasting, tithing). In stark contrast the tax collector possessed the <B>humility</B> to know that all he had was FAITH, and FAITH ALONE.<BR/><BR/><B>Jesus taught justification by a humble faith alone</B>: "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God."<BR/><BR/>Q.E.D."<BR/><BR/><I>My case in on the table for all to see.</I><BR/><BR/>Heh, heh, heh. Yes, it most certainly is. And it's a defectively weak case.<BR/><BR/><I>I DIRECTLY interacted with your claims and I even read the link you gave and interacted with it, showing its severe problems.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't confuse and conflate your "DIRECT" interaction as being the same as a convincing refutation. In fact, far from it. It's a losing refutation.<BR/><BR/>Second, as I've said before, no one asked you to interact with the link. I certainly didn't. In fact, I didn't even read your blather about the other items you took issue with. My only focus is upon Jesus and His teaching of justification by humble faith alone in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.<BR/><BR/>Thank you and good night.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26782938653614477622008-05-21T22:40:00.000-04:002008-05-21T22:40:00.000-04:00NICK SAID:“The problem is if you say "justificatio...NICK SAID:<BR/><BR/>“The problem is if you say "justification is by faith alone" WITHOUT a definition behind it then just about anyone can say they agree with your phrase while applying a radically different definition to it.”<BR/><BR/>Actually, I have that problem with certain interfaith statements like ECT and The Gift of Salvation.<BR/><BR/>“The Westminster clearly says justification is not by infused grace, thus anyone disagreeing with that is not faithful to classical Protestant teaching on the issue of justification.”<BR/><BR/>True, the WCF is a good point of reference for defining sola fide.<BR/><BR/>“You can make this claim because that is what the Westminster teaches.”<BR/><BR/>And what makes you think I treat the WCF as an authority source? I don’t. <BR/><BR/>“But you received your instruction through Reformed authors who naturally cast a negative light on Catholicism. My point is that we dont approach these issues with a clean slate.”<BR/><BR/>You really need to drop the psychic routine. You don’t know me personally. You’re in no position to do these mini-biographies. Do you also practice palmistry? <BR/><BR/>Warfield said very little about Catholicism. And my primary knowledge of Catholic theology comes straight from the horse’s mouth—not mediated by Reformed theologians. <BR/><BR/>“If a major issue like imputed righteousness can be shown from Scripture to be wrong then nobody can stay Protestant in good conscience.”<BR/><BR/>This all-or-nothing reasoning is simplistic and reductionistic.<BR/><BR/>“Nick: The idea of getting fed up and starting your own denomination is flatly against Scripture (2 Tim 4:3).”<BR/><BR/>That verse has nothing to do with breaking away from an apostate denomination.<BR/><BR/>“If Jesus established one Church then your job is to track down that one Church, not start your own.”<BR/><BR/>Now you’re equivocating by equating “the Church” with “ a denomination,” which is not how Evangelicals argue in the first place. And I also don’t share your wooden concept of “the Church.” <BR/><BR/>The church doesn’t have a unique address, any more than God has a unique address. You not going to find it by sticking a pushpin in the map. <BR/><BR/>“Your only alternative is to go the way of the JWs and LDS and say the Church Jesus established disappeared off the face of the earth and reappeared with them centuries later.”<BR/><BR/>No, the alternative is to appreciate the Biblical doctrine of the remnant. <BR/><BR/>“Many Modernist claims have already been explicitly condemned in Papal documents.”<BR/><BR/>Under Pius IX and Leo XIII. But modernism hunkered down and outlived its enemies. Vatican II canonized an incremental version of modernism.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49199914399309113342008-05-21T21:26:00.000-04:002008-05-21T21:26:00.000-04:00Steve:It’s true that I usually agree with the West...Steve:It’s true that I usually agree with the Westminster Confession. And I’m more Calvinistic than Jason.<BR/>However, Jason and I have the same theological method. I never frame theological debates in terms of creeds and confessions. For me, it always comes down to Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Nick: The problem is if you say "justification is by faith alone" WITHOUT a definition behind it then just about anyone can say they agree with your phrase while applying a radically different definition to it. The Westminster clearly says justification is not by infused grace, thus anyone disagreeing with that is not faithful to classical Protestant teaching on the issue of justification. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve:I don’t know how you define “Protestant.” Who are you including in that classification? Baptists? Anglicans? Lutherans? Pentecostals?<BR/><BR/>Nick: I define "Protestant" as those who adhere to the classical Protestant Confessions such as the Westminster, Baptist, Concord, etc. Those are the original Protestant bodies and anyone not adhering to those Confessions is not being faithful to the Reformers. Those not faithful to the reformers still fall under the umbrella of "Protestant" but do not faithfully represent the original Protestant cause.<BR/><BR/>Steve: I daresay that most modern-day evangelicals get their theology, not from reading 16C theologians, but from reading popular contemporary Christian writers or watching televangelists.<BR/><BR/>Nick: True, and those are NOT the groups I am talking about in most of the comments I have made.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: When I was first learning the ropes, I didn’t learn about Calvinism from Calvin. My foundational knowledge of Calvinism came from Warfield.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Still you received the major principles of classical Protestantism.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: Moreover, that merely taught me what Calvinism is. That isn’t why I believe it. I believe it as a result of my exegetical studies. I didn’t get that from Calvin. I turn to modern commentaries for exegetical theology, and I don’t limit myself to Reformed resources.<BR/><BR/>Nick: I too have done exegetical studies, and I have documented my findings. In my findings I contrast the results with classical Protestant teaching. Unless I see a better case presented than mine I cannot in good conscience accept Protestantism. My goal is to find people interested in looking into the facts of the issue of justification and I believe when they look at the facts I present they will see I am being faithful to the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/>Steve: Furthermore, Catholicism is a schismatic and heretical sect by separating itself from the true faith through its idolatrous, manmade rites and dogmas.<BR/><BR/>Nick: You can make this claim because that is what the Westminster teaches. However, if major tenets of the Westminster can be shown to be wrong then it loses its right to speak on other issues (eg Sacraments, Mass, etc).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: I didn’t grow up in the Reformed faith. The classic Protestant soli were never taught in any of the churches I attended during my formative years. So you’re barking up the wrong tree.<BR/><BR/>Nick: But you received your instruction through Reformed authors who naturally cast a negative light on Catholicism. My point is that we dont approach these issues with a clean slate.<BR/><BR/>Steve: Moreover, sociological analysis cuts both ways. What about the social conditioning of cradle Catholics?<BR/><BR/>Nick: I agree, even Catholics are conditioned to think in a certain way. But my purpose for coming here is because I think a good enough case can be made from Scripture for the Catholic understanding of justification, the main doctrine of the Reformation, that nobody wanting to stay faithful to Scripture can deny.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: We evaluate which side has the better argument.<BR/><BR/>Nick: Amen to that. If a major issue like imputed righteousness can be shown from Scripture to be wrong then nobody can stay Protestant in good conscience. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: To the contrary, sometimes it is right to start your own denomination. Better that than chain yourself to a decadent denomination.<BR/><BR/>Nick: The idea of getting fed up and starting your own denomination is flatly against Scripture (2 Tim 4:3). If Jesus established one Church then your job is to track down that one Church, not start your own. Check the groups who claim to be the one true Church, but never ever can you go starting your own. Your only alternative is to go the way of the JWs and LDS and say the Church Jesus established disappeared off the face of the earth and reappeared with them centuries later.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steve: And I think sola fide remains an essential doctrine. But Rome has taken on some additional errors since the time of the Reformation. Modernism has made deep inroads into contemporary Catholic theology.<BR/><BR/>Nick: It was such an essential doctrine that it was the main charge against Rome, if it turns out to be false then the Reformation was a fraud.<BR/><BR/>As for Modernism creeping in, the fact is all of Christendom has had to deal with Modernism. Modernism is actually the logical final result of Protestantism, but that is another discussion.<BR/><BR/>The fact that remains however is that Modernism has not changed any Catholic dogmas, and many Modernist claims have already been explicitly condemned in Papal documents. <BR/>Protestantism cannot stop Modernism because any Protestant can embrace Modernism and either start their own denomination or change existing ones from within.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78229373565928231802008-05-21T20:53:00.000-04:002008-05-21T20:53:00.000-04:00Truth unites: For instance, we have Nick launching...Truth unites: For instance, we have Nick launching an attack on Sola Fide (which is his right) and assuming the burden of proof to establish his case. So I point out one simple parable where Jesus taught faith alone and poof! his whole edifice comes crashing down.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nick: This is a cheap shot plain and simple. You are not interacting with the case I presented. I went over your links and claims and made my case, for you to not interact and claim vicotry is a cheap shot.<BR/><BR/>The moral of the parable is pride versus humility NOT faith versus works, that is staying more faithful to the text than you are. Further the Bible explicitly says God gives more grace to the humble (which the tax collector was), but that is not the language of imputed grace but rather infused.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My case in on the table for all to see. I DIRECTLY interacted with your claims and I even read the link you gave and interacted with it, showing its severe problems.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com