Trying to make sense of the Five "Solas" of Salvation

solodeogloria

Good evening!

alma73 wrote: »

We are all Children of God, a God know knows us in the womb. We are all made in His image.

Yes. We are formed by God in the womb (Psalm 139 discusses this concept). However by nature we are out of right relationship with God because of our sins. We need Christ's rescue so we can be become coheirs with Christ and adopted as children of God. By nature we are children of wrath. In order to understand why salvation is by grace one needs to understand the seriousness of the problem we find ourselves in. Headed for God's righteous condemnation (John 3:18, John 3:36). It is at this point you see that a wretched sinner like me could never be justified by his own works and you start to marvel at the wonderful Christ who saves us despite our sin rather than because of any merit.

alma73 wrote: »

Your interpretation that in the Bible it suggests that God created some people to be destined for damnation is not Christian teaching.

It's the logical conclusion of God's omniscience. We don't know who is saved and who is not. We offer God's grace indiscriminately to all. They accept or reject. The only difference between your position and mine is that I believe that the Bible says that this was foreknown and determined by God. I came to this conclusion after a lot of wrestling. I didn't like this idea at first and the Bible grated with me but I made peace on this issue and submitted. What right does the clay have to dispute with the potter?

alma73 wrote: »

John Calvin modified his teachings a number of times over his life. So you take the view of one Man you disregards 1500 years of universal Christian teaching over thousand of Christian scholars?

What about Augustine? In any case even if I rule out Calvin the texts throughout the New Testament that affirm this remain.

alma73 wrote: »

You are created to love God in eternity, but that is a decision that you need to take, you are not a robot of a deus ex machina pre-programmed for heaven or hell. The Christian God is a God of love. Christ came to teach a message to people who opened their hearts to hear it.

Both human responsibility and predestination sit in parallel in my thinking. I don't rule out human responsibility in terms of actions. I agree that the Christian God is a God of love. Christ became a curse on my behalf so I could be forgiven. I suspect you're discussing a straw man of my position.

alma73 wrote: »

Also, you base all your faith is a book that they Catholic Church wrote (of course inspired by God) but written by the Church, Why would you disregard its teachings? Did those who wrote the bible also write that we are to believe ONLY what is written in the bible? Doesn't the Gospels say that there was much more said by Christ that wasn't written.

The New Testament existed before the Roman Catholic Church. The New Testament is the only reliable source of Apostolic teaching. If I want to know what Jesus taught and did the Bible is the only reliable source. We are privileged to have the Bible. It's words are like gold, much fine gold.

alma73 wrote: »

So to take one part of the Church 1500 years after Christ and to formulate a different interpretation without the Church is an error.

I don't take anything from the Catholic Church. I trust the Apostolic Gospel. God's word has authority over His gathered people. No church has authority above God or what He has spoken.

alma73 wrote: »

Nobody is excluded from Heaven, we walk away from Christs Mercy, we reject him, he does not reject us. We condemn ourselves from his love. That is why our actions, our works are so important. As Christians we see the value of Christ sacrifice and we should walk towards the salvation he paid for. If we are not willing to follow the Gospel, we can't expect to be with Christ in Eternity.

Human responsibility and predestination go hand in hand. God graciously rescues and saves but He also hardens hearts. Both of these concepts are held together and it is a mystery as to how they do but the Bible holds both together and I can't ignore that unless someone has a very good argument as to why I'm mistaken in my reading.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His sovereign grace,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



Yes. We are formed by God in the womb (Psalm 139 discusses this concept). However by nature we are out of right relationship with God because of our sins. We need Christ's rescue so we can be become coheirs with Christ and adopted as children of God. By nature we are children of wrath. In order to understand why salvation is by grace one needs to understand the seriousness of the problem we find ourselves in. Headed for God's righteous condemnation (John 3:18, John 3:36). It is at this point you see that a wretched sinner like me could never be justified by his own works and you start to marvel at the wonderful Christ who saves us despite our sin rather than because of any merit.



It's the logical conclusion of God's omniscience. We don't know who is saved and who is not. We offer God's grace indiscriminately to all. They accept or reject. The only difference between your position and mine is that I believe that the Bible says that this was foreknown and determined by God. I came to this conclusion after a lot of wrestling. I didn't like this idea at first and the Bible grated with me but I made peace on this issue and submitted. What right does the clay have to dispute with the potter?



What about Augustine? In any case even if I rule out Calvin the texts throughout the New Testament that affirm this remain.



Both human responsibility and predestination sit in parallel in my thinking. I don't rule out human responsibility in terms of actions. I agree that the Christian God is a God of love. Christ became a curse on my behalf so I could be forgiven. I suspect you're discussing a straw man of my position.



The New Testament existed before the Roman Catholic Church. The New Testament is the only reliable source of Apostolic teaching. If I want to know what Jesus taught and did the Bible is the only reliable source. We are privileged to have the Bible. It's words are like gold, much fine gold.



I don't take anything from the Catholic Church. I trust the Apostolic Gospel. God's word has authority over His gathered people. No church has authority above God or what He has spoken.



Human responsibility and predestination go hand in hand. God graciously rescues and saves but He also hardens hearts. Both of these concepts are held together and it is a mystery as to how they do but the Bible holds both together and I can't ignore that unless someone has a very good argument as to why I'm mistaken in my reading.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ and His sovereign grace,
solodeogloria

My teaching on free will are not the Roman Catholic Church teaching alone, they are the universal churches teaching which was universally accepted. ( orthodox, armenian, coptic, and Catholic)

Where is it written in the bible that the bible is the ONLY reliable source of treaching? If you can find a quote I will become protestant tomorrow.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

My teaching on free will are not the Roman Catholic Church teaching alone, they are the universal churches teaching which was universally accepted. ( orthodox, armenian, coptic, and Catholic)

Where is it written in the bible that the bible is the ONLY reliable source of treaching? If you can find a quote I will become protestant tomorrow.

Good evening!

The Bible is the only written source of Apostolic teaching that we have from the Apostles. The Gospels are the only eyewitness accounts that we have of the Lord Jesus. Unless you're claiming that there are other sources of teaching from the first century that I can look at?

That's what I mean when I say that it is the only reliable source we've got.

I'm not asking you to become a Protestant. I'm merely setting out my stall. The Bible is our bread and butter. It contains everything necessary for salvation. It contains the words of life from my Lord. Why would I look anywhere else?

Good night!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The Bible is the only written source of Apostolic teaching that we have from the Apostles. The Gospels are the only eyewitness accounts that we have of the Lord Jesus. Unless you're claiming that there are other sources of teaching from the first century that I can look at?

That's what I mean when I say that it is the only reliable source we've got.

I'm not asking you to become a Protestant. I'm merely setting out my stall. The Bible is our bread and butter. It contains everything necessary for salvation. It contains the words of life from my Lord. Why would I look anywhere else?

Good night!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The Bible (as you have it today) did not exist in the first centuary. The Church and its teachings did exist.

When the bible was finally compiled in the 3rd centuary as there were many texts circulating of different teaching it was to give the Church a final church approved teaching on which texts were correct and which were not. If you believe in the bible why to you accept the churches decision on this and not on other teachings?

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

1. Agreed.

Great..

2. I see no good reason to detach these things. If God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that means that we were chosen to be in Jesus before we even existed.

a) One good reason to hold off with attaching the actual salvation transaction to predestination is it's not being mentioned? You're laying something onto the passage, not extracting something from it if you assume things present which aren't mentioned. Eisegesis vs. Exegesis

b) God has foreknowledge of who comes to be in Christ. How they came to be in Christ can occur through predestination (option A) or it can come from another 'in time' mechanism (option . You cannot presuppose predestination as the means by which folk are put in Christ when the means by which they are put into Christ aren't declared in that sentence. Predestination concerns other things that are to happen to those who are in Christ (by whatever means they came to be in Christ.)

c) God choosing us in Christ has no linguistic meaning other than considering "us in Christ" as a group to which what he predestines will apply. Him choosing us in Christ cannot be taken to mean choosing to put us in Christ, linguistically

3. I see no reason as to why "us" is an abstraction from the real group of people in question. The church are real tangible people brought together in Christ. God's plan for the fullness of time is to unite all things in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:10). There is no reason to believe from this chapter that God took a passive role in these things.

I'm not saying God took a passive role. I'm not denying "us in Christ" aren't real, tangible people. God choosing what was to happen to a real, tangible group of people is a choice he was able to make (back then) through, as I say, foreknowledge, which included him knowing precisely who they would be.

4. Other posters involved free will into the issue. I think in your understanding where God is simply predestining an abstract non-tangible group to be in Christ

I'm not saying he's predestining people to be in Christ. He is predestining things to happen to those who are in Christ and who he has foreknowledge about. Without predestining that they are saved.

We might separate how a person is saved (which I am arguing isn't predestined) with what happens to those who are saved (which is predestined)

I disagree. It refers to those in the group. If Paul meant it as an abstraction he would have stated so. Choosing is an active term, and predestining us to adoption. All of these concepts are coupled up with salvation in Romans also. Even in John you get hints of adoption being by virtue of salvation (John 1:12). If we are in Christ, in these things and God has chosen us to them then it must refer to our salvation.

Had my utilising foreknowledge helped? God would know, before the foundation of the world, precisely which persons (i.e. which file) would, in time, be saved and thus, come to occupy the group "us in him" (the file folder which was empty at the foundation of the world). It's not an abstract thing to refer to "us in Ireland" as a group, especially not when God knows the hairs on each of it's members heads, from the foundation of the world.

Choosing is indeed active. Active regarding what happens to a group. That activity was to predestine that group to things. That is what the text says.

All these concepts are indeed hooked up with salvation. Here we find out that they were predestined to occur to the saved. You cannot, from this text, however, presume the salvation event also predestined.

I've said above that there are at least a couple of options (A and . A isn't shown in the text itself and is being presumed by you. B is indicated, since the predestination items includes many things to be applied to those who are clearly saved, without mentioning the saving itself as being predestined.

I've quoted from the English Standard Version. Forgive me, but I think accusing me of altering the text is extremely unfair.

You used the term "us" on it's own. The term in your quote was "us in him". Pedantic perhaps but you understand a lot rides on each word.

I don't think verse 4 is referring to the things. Those are described at length in verse 3 and from verse 7 onwards. The object of verse 4 is the people who are chosen.

.

Indeed. He choose people (us) in Christ to be holy and blameless. As we have seen linguistically, inserting Christians, the saved, etc doesn't alter the linguistic object of the text.

I've explained in full above. I think it's worth explaining why you believe the text is referring to an abstract group rather than a tangible one.

Could you be more specific, with verses rather than chapters? You can see us honing in on single words afterall

I've explained I hope, the tangible group by way of God's foreknowledge. You can know every single individual yet deal with them as a group. I'd repeat the linguistics not supporting dealing with the text in any other way than considering "us in Christ" as the total of all Christianity

This is why we're discussing the words chosen and predestined. I think it is light foreknowledge to presume that God was not active in our salvation. It is passive on God's part. Except for Jesus it wasn't passive. The Father brings Him those who believe in John chapter 6.

We've already seen that choosing doesn't refer to salvation and neither does predestination. I'm not arguing against God being active in our salvation - indeed, I hold our salvation to rely on only his activity (whatever about our damnation).

That's the point. We do have the words. That's why I'm pointing this out. What's beyond the text is the concept that Paul is referring to an abstract group of people and that being "in Christ" doesn't mean that we were actually chosen to be in Him.

I'm not sure what you mean here, perhaps you could rewrite? I am concerned about the term "beyond the text" however, it would appear to refer to some other concept?

My point is that the words very clearly allow me to hold that position as I've explained above.

Per above.

Indeed, I agree the object is the people. It is the Christians who are chosen to be in Christ.The blessing is dealt with in the surrounding verses and explained. But the focus of verse four is "us" in Christ. This makes sense of the rest of Ephesians. It also makes sense of why Paul says that this was God's plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in Christ. God is proactive in this work. Not passive.

Hopefully you'll have justified this chosen to be in Christ when the text doesn't actually say that. But this point:

You cannot have Christians who are chosen to be in Christ. To be a Christian is to be in Christ (whatever about how they get to be in him). The terms are interchangeable: Christian / someone in Christ.

I don't see the relevance of the rest of what you say to this narrow issue we're on. For brevity, I'll skip bits that restate your case since I've elaborated from up top with further argument.

If it doesn't mean that those who believe in Jesus were chosen from the foundation from the world what does it mean? Why does Paul bother stating it if it is simply an abstract group and if it doesn't apply to the audience?

If someone in the audience is a Christian then they too are one of the us in him's and all Paul says applies to them too. That's not abstract.

What it means is what it linguistically says as argued above. We cannot lay a meaning onto the text, assuming words inserted that aren't actually there and then say "what else could it mean?". What it means would be better worked on once removing words that aren't there.

This comment is unnecessary antiskeptic. Your position wasn't clear, and I won't be accepting accusations from you. If you don't want to respond to my posts in a gracious spirit, please don't. I want to improve my understanding, I just don't have a foggies as to how your position holds logically together. If you have issues with my position either in respect to this or in respect to my sola scriptura you're welcome to present them, but please leave the ad-hominems out.

I didn't mean to offend so my apologies. I still have a problem with your not addressing, head on, the issue of multiple conflicting views on issues large and small. That issue impacting on your supposition that the bible meaning is there to be obtained if one would only read it and apply interpretive boundaries.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

alma73 wrote: »

The Bible (as you have it today) did not exist in the first centuary. The Church and its teachings did exist.

All the texts of the New Testament were used by the church (by this I mean the Christian church of the apostles) from the first century. They only didn't exist in a single volume. There is evidence in 2 Peter (when he speaks about Paul's writing) that apostolic letters were understood as Scripture even then.

alma73 wrote: »

When the bible was finally compiled in the 3rd centuary as there were many texts circulating of different teaching it was to give the Church a final church approved teaching on which texts were correct and which were not. If you believe in the bible why to you accept the churches decision on this and not on other teachings?

They chose on very simple criteria. Namely authorship, dating and usage.

I accept the canon because it was based on evidence of what the early Christian church used. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or any other must be tested against the Bible.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Good morning!

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) One good reason to hold off with attaching the actual salvation transaction to predestination is it's not being mentioned? You're laying something onto the passage, not extracting something from it if you assume things present which aren't mentioned. Eisegesis vs. Exegesis

The passage doesn't say we were predestined to those things but it says we were chosen to be "in Christ". Your interpretation requires a lot more eisegesis than mine. Particularly the folder analogy that you presented earlier. The answer for this question is probably to look how Paul uses "in Christ" elsewhere in the Bible. I think making a distinction between the status that we have as Christians and our salvation also isn't warranted. Even if I take your understanding of the fact that a generic undefined group X were chosen to Y, the fact is that God chose them to Y. In order for group X to get to Y they still need to be chosen by God to get there.

My understanding of this passage is also consistent with what Paul seems to be saying in Romans 8 - 11 and how Jesus understands things throughout John.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) God has foreknowledge of who comes to be in Christ. How they came to be in Christ can occur through predestination (option A) or it can come from another 'in time' mechanism (option . You cannot presuppose predestination as the means by which folk are put in Christ when the means by which they are put into Christ aren't declared in that sentence. Predestination concerns other things that are to happen to those who are in Christ (by whatever means they came to be in Christ.)

God has foreknowledge. We're half way there. I'm not "presupposing" anything. The words predestined and chosen are used in the passage. I just can't accept your view that both of these words don't refer to people being chosen but rather an arbitrary generic group. That requires a lot more eisegesis than what I'm doing.

My point throughout this thread is that it is both A and B. The Bible presents both A and B. I'm not "presupposing" anything. I'm simply reading what is before me in all of these texts. Bear in mind that I did not want to hold to this view, but text after text in the Bible forced me to change my mind. Ephesians 1 is a strong case but it isn't the only one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

c) God choosing us in Christ has no linguistic meaning other than considering "us in Christ" as a group to which what he predestines will apply. Him choosing us in Christ cannot be taken to mean choosing to put us in Christ, linguistically

I disagree with you. You need to think of the question what does Paul mean when he says that we are "in Christ". What does he mean when he says that we were adopted as sons. We know that these things happened with our salvation. I don't support an arbitrary divorce here. When Paul speaks of these things he is speaking about the status we have as a result of our salvation. Therefore in order to choose us to that He needs to choose us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not saying God took a passive role. I'm not denying "us in Christ" aren't real, tangible people. God choosing what was to happen to a real, tangible group of people is a choice he was able to make (back then) through, as I say, foreknowledge, which included him knowing precisely who they would be.

If God didn't actually choose people like this passage says it is passive. God waits for us all to make our own decision even though He knows what we will pick from the beginning.

If what you're arguing now is that God in fact did choose us specific people at the beginning of time to enjoy these things which are the fruit of our salvation I fail to see what the issue is. These things are bound up with our salvation. Therefore we would have to be chosen to be the ransomed people of God for this to actually be true of us now.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not saying he's predestining people to be in Christ. He is predestining things to happen to those who are in Christ and who he has foreknowledge about. Without predestining that they are saved.

I disagree with you. Even if I assume that verse 4 is about God choosing the blessing, which I think it just isn't. The blessings that Paul speaks about in this chapter are bound up with salvation, and they aren't separable.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We might separate how a person is saved (which I am arguing isn't predestined) with what happens to those who are saved (which is predestined)

Paul doesn't do this in the passage though. That's my issue with your understanding. Paul speaks of the blessings as a consequence of being chosen. He compares the blessing to how we were chosen.

Ephesians 1:3-10 ESV wrote:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Then in verse 7 it says "In him" we have. The blessings are a consequence of the choice of being chosen to be "in Christ".

antiskeptic wrote: »

Had my utilising foreknowledge helped? God would know, before the foundation of the world, precisely which persons (i.e. which file) would, in time, be saved and thus, come to occupy the group "us in him" (the file folder which was empty at the foundation of the world). It's not an abstract thing to refer to "us in Ireland" as a group, especially not when God knows the hairs on each of it's members heads, from the foundation of the world.

Foreknowledge doesn't help because there is more active language used in Scripture.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Choosing is indeed active. Active regarding what happens to a group. That activity was to predestine that group to things. That is what the text says.

I don't think it is. See above. Paul makes a comparison between the blessings and the choice and states that the blessings flow from that choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All these concepts are indeed hooked up with salvation. Here we find out that they were predestined to occur to the saved. You cannot, from this text, however, presume the salvation event also predestined.

If we are predestined to be in Christ and enjoy these blessings in Him, then it requires that God brought us to Him in the first place. I've explained why I think it's wrong to divorce the blessing from salvation in this passage. The blessings are the things that flow from the choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've said above that there are at least a couple of options (A and . A isn't shown in the text itself and is being presumed by you. B is indicated, since the predestination items includes many things to be applied to those who are clearly saved, without mentioning the saving itself as being predestined.

Both A and B are true. The word "predestined" is also used in other passages. Ephesians 1 is not a silo. The concept is also elaborated on in other passages without being explicitly stated as "predestination".

antiskeptic wrote: »

You used the term "us" on it's own. The term in your quote was "us in him". Pedantic perhaps but you understand a lot rides on each word.

I've used "us in Christ" at length in my posts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

IIndeed. He choose people (us) in Christ to be holy and blameless. As we have seen linguistically, inserting Christians, the saved, etc doesn't alter the linguistic object of the text.

I haven't inserted anything. I believe you have with this folder concept.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you be more specific, with verses rather than chapters? You can see us honing in on single words afterall

Could we not just quote the whole lot here? I think we've exhausted Ephesians. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've explained I hope, the tangible group by way of God's foreknowledge. You can know every single individual yet deal with them as a group. I'd repeat the linguistics not supporting dealing with the text in any other way than considering "us in Christ" as the total of all Christianity

I don't think you have. The group isn't tangible unless God had chosen them. It isn't tangible at time point X where we say that God chose at the foundation of the world. I agree that "us in Christ" refers to our status. A clear part of that status however is our salvation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We've already seen that choosing doesn't refer to salvation and neither does predestination. I'm not arguing against God being active in our salvation - indeed, I hold our salvation to rely on only his activity (whatever about our damnation).

No we haven't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

II'm not sure what you mean here, perhaps you could rewrite? I am concerned about the term "beyond the text" however, it would appear to refer to some other concept?

"beyond the text" = eisegesis.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully you'll have justified this chosen to be in Christ when the text doesn't actually say that. But this point:

I've explained this to you above.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You cannot have Christians who are chosen to be in Christ. To be a Christian is to be in Christ (whatever about how they get to be in him). The terms are interchangeable: Christian / someone in Christ.

Christians are those who are chosen to be in Christ. That's basically the point. Christians are those people who God has chosen to be in Christ and therefore has given to Christ as the John 6 passage that I quoted earlier states.

antiskeptic wrote: »

II don't see the relevance of the rest of what you say to this narrow issue we're on. For brevity, I'll skip bits that restate your case since I've elaborated from up top with further argument.

I agree these posts are getting too long.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If someone in the audience is a Christian then they too are one of the us in him's and all Paul says applies to them too. That's not abstract.

Paul is discussing how the people who are reading the letter got to where they are now. By being chosen in Christ. He explicitly mentions the mechanism in chapter 2, and even goes as far as to state that their works were chosen in advance by God so that nobody could boast (Ephesians 2:8-10).

antiskeptic wrote: »

IWhat it means is what it linguistically says as argued above. We cannot lay a meaning onto the text, assuming words inserted that aren't actually there and then say "what else could it mean?". What it means would be better worked on once removing words that aren't there.

I agree that we can't lay a meaning onto the text. I'm arguing that you are doing this and you are arguing that I have done this

I'd strongly recommend that we move on to Romans 8 - 11 instead of ping ponging along on this passage. I strongly disagree with you that Ephesians 1 could be left as light foreknowledge. Paul uses the words foreknew and predestined separately in Romans 8 for example.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The Bible is the only written source of Apostolic teaching that we have from the Apostles. The Gospels are the only eyewitness accounts that we have of the Lord Jesus. Unless you're claiming that there are other sources of teaching from the first century that I can look at?

That's what I mean when I say that it is the only reliable source we've got.

I'm not asking you to become a Protestant. I'm merely setting out my stall. The Bible is our bread and butter. It contains everything necessary for salvation. It contains the words of life from my Lord. Why would I look anywhere else?

Good night!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The texts were in circulation among Christians along with other texts that are not in the Bible. 300 years after the apostles, the Church (its bishops) approved what was Church teaching and which texts to include and which were not sacred Scripture. If you accept the Church teaching on Scripture then why reject other teachings?

And again I go back to the point, where does it say in Sacred Scripture that you should ONLY believe what is written in the divine inspired Scriptures that they Church gave us? Why don't you believe in the Gospel of Thomas? or Judas or Gospel of Philip?

It was precisely because there were so many texts that they was the need for the Church to decree what was the truth and what wasn't. You seem to accept their decision on that (because you only believe in the 4 Gospels right? ) yet you reject its other teachings.

The Bible was never meant to be the sole source of our faith, because that was not the purpose of its compilation and its not written in the Bible, "Thou shall only believe what is written here" infact it says the opposite that their were things that were not written.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

The texts were in circulation among Christians along with other texts that are not in the Bible. 300 years after the apostles, the Church (its bishops) approved what was Church teaching and which texts to include and which were not sacred Scripture. If you accept the Church teaching on Scripture then why reject other teachings?

And again I go back to the point, where does it say in Sacred Scripture that you should ONLY believe what is written in the divine inspired Scriptures that they Church gave us? Why don't you believe in the Gospel of Thomas? or Judas or Gospel of Philip?

It was precisely because there were so many texts that they was the need for the Church to decree what was the truth and what wasn't. You seem to accept their decision on that (because you only believe in the 4 Gospels right? ) yet you reject its other teachings.

The Bible was never meant to be the sole source of our faith, because that was not the purpose of its compilation and its not written in the Bible, "Thou shall only believe what is written here" infact it says the opposite that their were things that were not written.

Good morning!

I accept the canon on grounds of dating, authorship and usage from the first century. Protestantism has it's roots in Roman Catholicism. Protestants wanted to reform the Roman Catholic church and remediate the abuses that had gone on. This is why Luther went to the Diet of Worms in 1521 and why Lutherans wanted to be at the Council of Trent. The Holy Roman Emperor wanted it to be an ecumenical council where the Protestants could make their defence but the Papacy forbade the Protestants from coming on account of "heresy". I use inverted commas because there was nothing of the sort. The huge dividing line occurred at the Council of Trent. Particularly in the assumption that grace is only achieved by participating in the sacraments (works based salvation) and that the church has the primary authority over the Scriptures. There are other differences that I believe to be secondary.

The reason I reject the other gnostic gospels is because they come too late much in the same way that other texts come too late. I will read any text provided that it doesn't go beyond Scripture in its scope. For example Biblical commentary, sermons and exegesis or Christian biography.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I accept the canon on grounds of dating, authorship and usage from the first century. Protestantism has it's roots in Roman Catholicism. Protestants wanted to reform the Roman Catholic church and remediate the abuses that had gone on. This is why Luther went to the Diet of Worms in 1521 and why Lutherans wanted to be at the Council of Trent. The Holy Roman Emperor wanted it to be an ecumenical council where the Protestants could make their defence but the Papacy forbade the Protestants from coming on account of "heresy". I use inverted commas because there was nothing of the sort. The huge dividing line occurred at the Council of Trent. Particularly in the assumption that grace is only achieved by participating in the sacraments (works based salvation) and that the church has the primary authority over the Scriptures. There are other differences that I believe to be secondary.

The reason I reject the other gnostic gospels is because they come too late much in the same way that other texts come too late. I will read any text provided that it doesn't go beyond Scripture in its scope. For example Biblical commentary, sermons and exegesis or Christian biography.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

You should read the joint declaration of the doctrine of justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.

We confess together that good works—a Christian life lived in faith, hope, and love—follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. . . .

When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

I have absolutely no doubt that the protestant reformers started with good intentions. However its important to understand those teachings that are rooted in age old teachings that were shared with other Church's that didn't fall under Rome yet shared Rome's teaching. There were a lot of bad practices in the Roman Catholic Church, but its teaching was not changed. (selling positions and nepotism, selling indulgences)..

Protestants reject that Mary was a Virgen for all her life because the Bible says Christ had brothers, but the Bible didn't say Mary had other Children does it? Maybe Joseph had Children from a previous marriage. What is clear is that there was universal acceptance of perpetual virginity of Mary from the early church. Yet protestants reject this because its not written in the bible. So we return to the fact that not everything we are supposed to believe was meant to be written in the Bible, the bible does not say this and its a false premise for the reformation fathers to take this stance. The fact remains that they took an interpretation without Christian teaching of Scriptures 1500 years after Christ and disregarded long held teaching in the Catholic Church without realising that the teachings were not just Roman Catholic, they were universally accepted Christian Teaching. The Orthodox reject the Catholic view on Purgatory, yet they pray for their dead the same as Catholics, Why if the Soul is either damned or saved? Praying for the dead is a long standing Christian teaching.

The underlying premise of some protestant teaching is not biblical so its not possible to accept the interpretations of Luther or Calvin.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

alma73 wrote: »

You should read the joint declaration of the doctrine of justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.

I've read the extract that you provided. I agree with most of it. There is a gaping oversight though. Even if we can agree that Christ's death was sufficient for the full forgiveness of sins, the reality is that from the Council of Trent at the latest the Roman Catholic Church has taught that grace is received by participating in the sacraments. This is still a form of works based salvation.

alma73 wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt that the protestant reformers started with good intentions. However its important to understand those teachings that are rooted in age old teachings that were shared with other Church's that didn't fall under Rome yet shared Rome's teaching. There were a lot of bad practices in the Roman Catholic Church, but its teaching was not changed. (selling positions and nepotism, selling indulgences)..

It isn't just the abuses people had issue with. The Reformers wanted to restore the apostolic Gospel and make it available to all. That's crucially important. I suspect many people have put their trust in Christ by this work. I suspect of it weren't for the Reformation there would be far far less professing Christians in the world today and that the Bible would be still in the preserve of a few rather than many.

A great many people died to promote this truth. If you read Foxe's Book of Martyrs you will see the great sacrifices many men went to bring these Reforms. I'm thankful to them all. They were martyred in Jesus' name and for His sake for defending the apostolic Gospel of Jesus Christ.

alma73 wrote: »

Protestants reject that Mary was a Virgen for all her life because the Bible says Christ had brothers, but the Bible didn't say Mary had other Children does it? Maybe Joseph had Children from a previous marriage. What is clear is that there was universal acceptance of perpetual virginity of Mary from the early church. Yet protestants reject this because its not written in the bible. So we return to the fact that not everything we are supposed to believe was meant to be written in the Bible, the bible does not say this and its a false premise for the reformation fathers to take this stance. The fact remains that they took an interpretation without Christian teaching of Scriptures 1500 years after Christ and disregarded long held teaching in the Catholic Church without realising that the teachings were not just Roman Catholic, they were universally accepted Christian Teaching. The Orthodox reject the Catholic view on Purgatory, yet they pray for their dead the same as Catholics, Why if the Soul is either damned or saved? Praying for the dead is a long standing Christian teaching.

The underlying premise of some protestant teaching is not biblical so its not possible to accept the interpretations of Luther or Calvin.

I reject the perpetual virginity of Mary because Jesus' mother and siblings are explicitly mentioned in the Gospels. That's true. I reject purgatory because it isn't Biblical and it undermines Jesus' death on the cross. It cleansed us from our sins once and for all. Why would anything else be necessary?

The Bible says that it contains everything necessary for the Christian. It is sufficient. No church has the authority to suggest it's word trumps the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESVUK wrote:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

You're forgetting that not all of us were raised as Catholics in Ireland. I wasn't baptised into the Roman Catholic Church and I wasn't confirmed into it. I'm an enthusiastic advocate of the Reformation because it was the best thing to happen to the Christian church in the last millennium. The dispensing of the Bible far and wide has changed our world and has produced millions of mature Christians all over the world. Who are you to deny that that was a good thing?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

@solodeogloria. The bible does not say Mary had any other Children. Yes we believe that participating in the we receive grace, that is very much Biblical, we just have to read John. You can't restore the apostolic Gospel without the teaching of the Church. You can't disregard what as not written as heresy and call it false. Its not written in the bible that Christians are suppose to believe ONLY what is written there.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Mark 3:31-35 ESVUK wrote:

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 6:1-6 ESVUK wrote:

He went away from there and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offence at him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honour, except in his home town and among his relatives and in his own household.” And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

Who are these?

Is that not a fair question?

You speak of "the Church" as if the Roman Catholic Church was the church founded by the apostles. That's another point of disagreement. The apostolic church was merely the early Christian church. Roman Catholicism as it is today began with Constantine as far as I can tell.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!





Who are these?

Is that not a fair question?

You speak of "the Church" as if the Roman Catholic Church was the church founded by the apostles. That's another point of disagreement. The apostolic church was merely the early Christian church. Roman Catholicism as it is today began with Constantine as far as I can tell.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The same word of Brother was used to describe Abraham and Lot, where they brothers. The Bible says Jesus was son of Mary, does it say the Mary Mother of Jesus had any other Children?

Or maybe you could tell me the hebrew word for cousin? Your bible is a translation of a translation of a Translation.

Without the teaching of the Church you can't full understand sacred Scripture, however Church teaching does not contradict the written bible.

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!





Who are these?

Is that not a fair question?

You speak of "the Church" as if the Roman Catholic Church was the church founded by the apostles. That's another point of disagreement. The apostolic church was merely the early Christian church. Roman Catholicism as it is today began with Constantine as far as I can tell.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Also regarding the "Roman Catholic" Church, why not look at the Armenian Church teaching, They separated very early. You might be surprised that much of what you reject as Roman Catholic is infact not invented by the Roman Catholics.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

The same word of Brother was used to describe Abraham and Lot, where they brothers. The Bible says Jesus was son of Mary, does it say the Mary Mother of Jesus had any other Children?

Or maybe you could tell me the hebrew word for cousin? Your bible is a translation of a translation of a Translation.

Without the teaching of the Church you can't full understand sacred Scripture, however Church teaching does not contradict the written bible.

Good evening!

I thought that Lot was Abraham's nephew:

Genesis 12:5a ESVUK wrote:

And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan.

I disagree that we can't understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic Church or the tradition of any other church. God can help us through preaching, but ultimately His word has authority over the church and not the other way around.

The Bible doesn't say that Mary was a virgin for her whole life. The Bible also doesn't tell us that the brothers and sisters weren't Mary's or indeed that Joseph had a previous wife. The simplest solution is that we're told that Jesus has a mother and that he has brothers. We're not given any other details. I don't believe that Mary was a virgin perpetually simply because the Bible doesn't say so. I don't believe any person is required to believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin because it isn't Biblical. People are entitled to believe that if they wish, but it is conjecture. People however, are not entitled to tell me that I must believe this without Biblical basis. That's the basic principle behind sola scriptura.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I thought that Lot was Abraham's nephew:


I disagree that we can't understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic Church or the tradition of any other church. God can help us through preaching, but ultimately His word has authority over the church and not the other way around.

The Bible doesn't say that Mary was a virgin for her whole life. The Bible also doesn't tell us that the brothers and sisters weren't Mary's or indeed that Joseph had a previous wife. The simplest solution is that we're told that Jesus has a mother and that he has brothers. We're not given any other details. I don't believe that Mary was a virgin perpetually simply because the Bible doesn't say so. I don't believe any person is required to believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin because it isn't Biblical. People are entitled to believe that if they wish, but it is conjecture. People however, are not entitled to tell me that I must believe this without Biblical basis. That's the basic principle behind sola scriptura.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

What hit me one day about the Catholic Teaching Mary was Christs word on the Cross. He was leaving his Mother, why he saw it necessary to say to John to behold his mother? If she had other children.

You found all your arguments on the belief that the Bible has everything written in it, and that belief is not written in the bible. Its not the complete picture of our faith, its a pilar, but not everything.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

What hit me one day about the Catholic Teaching Mary was Christs word on the Cross. He was leaving his Mother, why he saw it necessary to say to John to behold his mother? If she had other children.

You found all your arguments on the belief that the Bible has everything written in it, and that belief is not written in the bible. Its not the complete picture of our faith, its a pilar, but not everything.

Good morning!

We're at loggerheads.

I believe the only reliable source of apostolic teaching is the New Testament and I believe no church owns or has authority above God's word in Scripture.

You have to remember that there are many millions of people in the world who are living full Christian lives outside of the Roman Catholic Church in the world. We're not all people who left either. Many people have believed and understood the Scriptures without the Roman Catholic Church.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

We're at loggerheads.

I believe the only reliable source of apostolic teaching is the New Testament and I believe no church owns or has authority above God's word in Scripture.

You have to remember that there are many millions of people in the world who are living full Christian lives outside of the Roman Catholic Church in the world. We're not all people who left either. Many people have believed and understood the Scriptures without the Roman Catholic Church.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Hi, I know what you believe. But there are also millions who don't believe in the Gospel. You have cemented your arguments on an argument that is an interpretation, Sola Scriptura, which is not written in the Gospel. And I go back to my stance, my faith is not in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, its rooted in what was the belief of many Churches for the last 2000 years. The Pope in Rome or Constantine did not invent my faith.

You can't reject a teaching that is not written in the Bible without that has been held for 2000 years.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

Hi, I know what you believe. But there are also millions who don't believe in the Gospel. You have cemented your arguments on an argument that is an interpretation, Sola Scriptura, which is not written in the Gospel. And I go back to my stance, my faith is not in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, its rooted in what was the belief of many Churches for the last 2000 years. The Pope in Rome or Constantine did not invent my faith.

You can't reject a teaching that is not written in the Bible without that has been held for 2000 years.

Good morning!

I know there are many people who don't believe in the Gospel? Who is going to take God's word in the Scriptures to them? Indeed who is going to take it to the Irish again?

I know pastors involved in little independent churches up and down the country who are doing this. It quite frankly warms my heart. Jesus' words are spirit and they are life. Why would you put them in the back seat? We should be poring over them daily like they contain the finest riches that this world has to offer. Any teaching that weakens Christ's grace and Christ's death and Christ's words should be dispensed with. That's why I'm an evangelical Protestant.

I've cemented my position in the apostolic Gospel of grace. That's all.

Please answer me this question. Why should I trust teaching that comes centuries later that adds to or undermines the Bible? Because "the Catholic Church says so" isn't an answer.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

keano_afc

Just on the perpetual virginity of Mary, Matthew 1:24-25 says "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife but knew her not until she had given birth to a son..."

Other translations use the word "consummate" or "sexual relations". Its clear from scripture that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life, its quite a leap to make that assumption.

alma73

keano_afc wrote: »

Just on the perpetual virginity of Mary, Matthew 1:24-25 says "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife but knew her not until she had given birth to a son..."

Other translations use the word "consummate" or "sexual relations". Its clear from scripture that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life, its quite a leap to make that assumption.

Here is some study on the "knew her not until"

Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for "until" whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph "not having come together" would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

alma73

The Affirmative Argument (below is copy past,)

Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:

1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.

3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

solodeogloria

Good evening all!

To be honest I'm not particularly interested in discussing at length as to whether or not Mary had sex with her husband after marriage (which is a fairly likely outcome). Perpetual virginity isn't a Biblical concept.

I'm happy to leave it there. There's weightier matters to discuss.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening all!

To be honest I'm not particularly interested in discussing at length as to whether or not Mary had sex with her husband after marriage (which is a fairly likely outcome). Perpetual virginity isn't a Biblical concept.

I'm happy to leave it there. There's weightier matters to discuss.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So I give a reasoned argument quoting the bible and your not interesting discussing? You started the sola scriptura discussion.

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

So I give a reasoned argument quoting the bible and your not interesting discussing? You started the sola scriptura discussion.

Good morning!

The approach of assuming a doctrine to be true and then trying to shoehorn the Biblical text to say something it doesn't explicitly isn't consistent with the principle of sola scriptura. Irrespective of what conjecture you can find online the doctrine isn't mentioned explicitly in the Bible. I'd argue it's not even there implicitly.

For the record I'd regard the purgatory doctrine to be more challenging.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

keano_afc

There's absolutely zero logic for the perpetual virginity of Mary. But as solodegloria said, there are bigger issues to discuss.

alma73

keano_afc wrote: »

There's absolutely zero logic for the perpetual virginity of Mary. But as solodegloria said, there are bigger issues to discuss.

There is zero logic for God to die on the Cross, but he did.

You don't look for someone to look after your mother if you have siblings do you?

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

There is zero logic for God to die on the Cross, but he did.

You don't look for someone to look after your mother if you have siblings do you?

Good evening!

The logic for the cross is that it's clearly required for redemption and the forgiveness of sins.

I have one primary rule for Bible reading. Don't assume anything beyond the text. The Bible doesn't state that Mary was a virgin. It's possible that Jesus said this to John for his benefit as well as hers but conjecture isn't valuable.

There are much more weighty matters to be discussed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The logic for the cross is that it's clearly required for redemption and the forgiveness of sins.

I have one primary rule for Bible reading. Don't assume anything beyond the text. The Bible doesn't state that Mary was a virgin. It's possible that Jesus said this to John for his benefit as well as hers but conjecture isn't valuable.

There are much more weighty matters to be discussed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

What is it written in the Bible that we should not assume anything beyond the text? Christ said to Peter lead his sheep, Do you believe that the apostles selected successors?