Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 4   [ 68 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:56 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 2671
Location: Atlanta, GA
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Closet Catholic wrote:
How so? Is Hebrews the youngest book of the New Testament? If it isn’t, you would have to say that all subsequent documents shouldn’t be part of the canon. I think that you are confusing revelation with Scripture, restricting the former to the latter, and logically ending up with having to deny the canonicity of books like 1., 2. and 3. John, 1. and 2. Peter, the Revelation of John, etc.

I actually hold that Hebrews was one of the last books of the NT written, but that aside, the point is that revelation is complete in Christ. Thus, no more prophets, etc. The closing of the Apostolic age, strictly, is what marks the closing of the Canon. In principle, you could argue that Jesus could appoint new apostles to write revelation, which Heb 1:1-2 would allow (on my view), but since the apostles' job was to serve as the foundation of the Church, it is hard to see what it would mean or how new apostles could be appointed.

Quote:
But the fact of his resurrection can also be used as an argument for the authority of the Church. If he established the Church, it can rightly be said to be authoritative, including in questions of interpretation. In the same way it is not given to anyone to interpret a law or a constitution for himself.

No, the resurrection proves the authority of Jesus. If Jesus then gives authority to the Church, you could make the case that way. That, as it stands, is precisely how I make the case for the authority of Scripture. I, however, see no place where He makes the Church authoritative in interpretation of Scripture. Besides, that would be anachronistic, since part of Scripture includes the OT, which the Church wasn't around to interpret. It all gets very messy.

Doom wrote:
I hate it when people misuse words, the Bible is not, and cannot be 'infallible', the Bible is 'inerrant', there's a difference, and it is not a small one. To be infallible you have to be an agent responsible for making decisions.

Infallibility means it is impossible to err with regard to what one teaches. The Bible is infallible. The only way around that is to say that the Bible doesn't teach anything. But that's silly for two reasons. First, words (which the Bible contains) teach. You'd have to be a post-modern to argue that the interpreter, not the Bible, teaches. Second, the Bible, strictly, as you well know, is a collection of the written teachings of a variety of people. Those people, under inspiration, infallibly taught, and their teachings are recorded as Scripture. Thus, "the Bible is infallible" is shorthand for sentences like "Paul spoke infallibly as recorded in his letter to the Galatians."

Closet Catholic wrote:
And where, exactly, does Jesus say that the Bible is inspired? And if he does, where did he present you with the canon of Scripture? Where does Jesus say that "the book of Acts is inspired"? Or "the book of Hebrews is inspired"? Or "the book of Jude is inspired"? I cannot see any place that Christ has said anything about the inspiration of any books, except perhaps (certain parts of) the Old Testament.

You cannot point to 2. Timothy 3:16, as this does not provide us with any definition of what Scriptures constitute the Canon. (And, given its author, it had to be written in the 60s, making older than most of the New Testament.) In fact, when St. Paul wrote about the Church, to St. Timothy, he said that she is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1. Timothy 3:15)

It could be that Christ has revealed this to you privately, but I haven't gotten any list of books from him directly.

Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken. That speaks to its necessarily binding nature. He also said repeatedly that Scripture had to be fulfilled. He clearly attributed divine authority to Scripture, which in His day consisted of the OT. The principle one derives from this is NOT that Hebrews is Scripture and thus inspired. It is that Scripture is inspired. The question, then, is what qualifies as Scripture.

Jesus gave no NT canon (that would be impossible for the obvious reasons). But I've denied on these boards more than a few times that the canon is an article of faith. Each of the 27 books of the NT are recognized to be Scripture. Therefore, on Jesus' view that Scripture is divinely authoritative, the 27 books of the NT must likewise be understood as divinely authoritative.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:29 am
Posts: 6504
Location: Ireland
Doom wrote:
I hate it when people misuse words, the Bible is not, and cannot be 'infallible', the Bible is 'inerrant', there's a difference, and it is not a small one. To be infallible you have to be an agent responsible for making decisions.

Which Bible is 'inerrant'?


jac3510 wrote:
Doom wrote:
I hate it when people misuse words, the Bible is not, and cannot be 'infallible', the Bible is 'inerrant', there's a difference, and it is not a small one. To be infallible you have to be an agent responsible for making decisions.

Infallibility means it is impossible to err with regard to what one teaches. The Bible is infallible.

Which Bible?

I don't care if you use the word 'inerrant' or 'infallible', I know what you mean. But please tell me which Bible or Bibles you mean. They differ. They can't all be inerrant or infallible. So please tell me which one, or which ones, and why that one, or those ones? How do you know?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 7:15 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5382
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
jac3510 wrote:
I actually hold that Hebrews was one of the last books of the NT written, but that aside, the point is that revelation is complete in Christ.
Which you then conflate with the settlement of canon.

jac3510 wrote:
The closing of the Apostolic age, strictly, is what marks the closing of the canon.
But why assume that all of revelation is in the canon?

jac3510 wrote:
No, the resurrection proves the authority of Jesus. If Jesus then gives authority to the Church, you could make the case that way. That, as it stands, is precisely how I make the case for the authority of Scripture. I, however, see no place where He makes the Church authoritative in interpretation of Scripture.
Yes, and that same Jesus did establish a Church. But he never established a set of new Scriptures. Not once. Unless you want to beg the question, and assume that revelation = Scripture.

jac3510 wrote:
Besides, that would be anachronistic, since part of Scripture includes the OT, which the Church wasn't around to interpret. It all gets very messy.
It is pretty easy to interpret a text after it is written. It’s much harder to do so before. But kidding aside, many (if not most) OT scholars agree that the NT represents a new interpretation of the OT, an interpretation in light of the revelation in Christ.

jac3510 wrote:
Infallibility means it is impossible to err with regard to what one teaches.
Yes, as a person, not a book. The Bible doesn’t teach anything. It contains teaching, but it is not an active agent. So you should say that the Bible is inerrant; that it doesn't contain error.

jac3510 wrote:
Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken. That speaks to its necessarily binding nature. He also said repeatedly that Scripture had to be fulfilled. He clearly attributed divine authority to Scripture, which in His day consisted of the OT.
And, what OT? The first Christians used some version of the Septuagint extensively, and in regards to the fact that St. Paul told Timothy to regard the Scriptures that he had been acquainted with from childhood (2. Timothy 3:15), it is important to note that Timothy was Jew of the Diapora, and could easily have used the Septuagint, or Hebrew version of books that aren’t part of the Masoretic canon.

But you do have one big problem: As far as I’m aware, there existed no Jewish canon until, perhaps, ‘the council of Jamnia’ (if there ever was one), which was after the time of Christ, and of no interest to us.

jac3510 wrote:
The principle one derives from this is NOT that Hebrews is Scripture and thus inspired. It is that Scripture is inspired. The question, then, is what qualifies as Scripture.
Yes, indeed.

jac3510 wrote:
Jesus gave no NT canon (that would be impossible for the obvious reasons). But I've denied on these boards more than a few times that the canon is an article of faith.
What do you mean by ‘an article of faith’? Do you believe that we could find other books or letter that could be recognized to be Scripture? If not, isn’t your position then merely semantics?

jac3510 wrote:
Each of the 27 books of the NT are recognized to be Scripture.
But how do you recognize it to be the word of God? How do you know that the book of Jude isn’t just a forgery? A ‘burning in the bosom’?

jac3510 wrote:
Therefore, on Jesus' view that Scripture is divinely authoritative, the 27 books of the NT must likewise be understood as divinely authoritative.
Yes, if you first know that they are inspired. But how do you know it? You claim that it is on the authority of Christ, yet he has never revealed directly what books constitutes Scripture.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 1:38 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4367
Location: Castle Black: my chamber behind the Armory
Religion: Catholic
jac3510 wrote:
There's the typical eisogesis that everyone here is so addicted, too. I'm starting to wonder if that's just the methodology prevalent on this board or if that's the official Catholic way. If so, that'd just be one more reason it would be impossible for me to ever be a Catholic. If it's not official, then you're just "doing it wrong."


I know. It must be a real pain to deal with the Bible as it actaully reads. Better instead you can just go on "interpreting" it to say what you want it to.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
But what of those who believed once and then later did not? Are we to assume that apostates are guaranteed salvation as well?

If they believed, they are guaranteed eternal life, regardless of their future actions, states, etc.


Sorry, scripture is clearly not on your side on this. If future sin had no effect on salvation, then why did Paul, in all of his letters to the Church of God-which were already believers and therefore "saved" constantly teach them to not sin? Seems rather superluous to talk so much about avoiding sin when avoiding or not avoiding it-that is assuming your theology to be true-makes no wit of difference.

Paul should have spent more time on the Rapture or the first Mellinium, shouldn't he? Or maybe refuting James' words about not being saved by faith alone?

Why do the Scriptures all say that we will be judged on our deeds, what we do? If faith alone saves us, then why is there any judgement for what we've done?
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
Well its a false conclusion based on the assumption that your "framework" is superior to anything you don't agree with.

We have an entire thread about the validity of the framework.

Which you proved nothing but how subjective and relative your "framework" is. You only presume the Church's framework is circular because you refuse to do the historical work to determine whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church. So long as you remain in that ignorance you can continue to make the claim of circularity. But once the Church is proven to be the true Church your objection flies out the window and so does your "framework". The last options after that would be to either submit to the Church's true authority or disobey God and continue with your beliefs.

They say ignorance is bliss...
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
Me? Why should an intellectual giant as yourself care about me?
Are we talking about a real substantive change or just a vague nuanced change?

Why should a Catholic such as you who has direct access to the Truth care about me? Goose and gander and all that, or are you too good to answer your own questions?


You say "Catholic" like its a derogatory remark...Thank You! If my humility bothers you I apologize. But if you insist about years ago I went from atheism to Catholicism. A couple years ago I finally shed my last few protetsant qualms having to do with Mary and the Communion of Saints after reading a few books, prayer, and speaking with some really good apologists-both Catholic and protestant. Oh, and just recently I went from strict conservatism to a more classical libertarianism.

You feel as though I and every other Catholic on this board is obviously flawed. I'll make to you the very same challenge that I make to every other protestant I come to. You promise to give me your best shot and I promise to be entirely open and objective to your claims and if you can convince me that your theology is in accord with the Bible then I will immediately convert and go to the next protestant Sunday service.

I'm dead serious. I'm so dead serious that I'll even give you my personal email address and we can correspond there. Because I want to know the Truth. And I promised God that I would follow the Truth no matter where it leads me, even if that it to somewhere I wouldn't expect.

I made that challenge to several protestants here and many more around where I live. None of them here took up my challenge and only a few around where I live are still in contact with me-including some JW's that frequent my neighborhood. Out of three protestant pastors, two I have sent letters asking questions about their teachings that I have yet to get responses from and another who after my first set of questions never responded at all.

You asked, so there.
jac3510 wrote:
And to answer your second question, substantive. Prior to that was about two years when I went through a major shift in my thinking, which resulted in the paper I linked to earlier.

So what was the shift?
jac3510 wrote:

Quote:
Concluions based on observations...

Conclusions are arguments. You've given none.


jac, if take one verse of the Bible, form an entire theology around that one verse, and ignore or explain away others verses that contradict that theology then your method is obviously flawed. You'd be better off just taking a felt-tipped marker and start making your Bible look like a redacted file from the Pentagon.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
If "then canon is closed" means that everything Jesus said and did is in the Bible, then how do you explain John 20:30-31 or Acts 1:2-3?

How do you explain 2 Then 2:15? What are the traditions Paul taught by word of mouth?

I never said everything Jesus said or did is in the Bible. I said the revelation concerning God in Christ is complete in Him. Therefore, no other revelation is necessary.

Yet Christ promised that He would not leave His Church orphans and that he would always be with them and would send His Spirit to lead us into all the Truth.

I could agree that all revealtion concerning God is complete in Him. But it doesn't follow from that premise that what He revealed could not or would not be further developed or defined. Nor does it follow from that premise that the Apostles did not nor could not endow those approved men who followed their footsteps with their authority(2 Tim 2:2). It seems more reasonable that Christ would want a continued line of shepherds following the Apostles to guide and direct and teach the generations that came after them, and to further teach, form, bless, and confirm new bishops to spread the Apostles traditions doewn to the present.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
Yes it is possible you can, but let's be frank here. Nobody goes to the NT because of mere historic curiosity. Everyone knows what Christianity is and they know what the NT is about. So already they approach the NT with a preconceived notions and/or their prejudices right behind them.

Somebody told you about Jesus the Christ before you ever opened a Bible. That person told you that Jesus is the Son of God, that He loves you so much that He died for you on a cross, and that if you accept Him as your personal Savior then you'll be saved. THEN they handed you a Bible & told you it was the inspired Word of God.

It may have later given you a certitude of inspiration, but you received the knowledge of its inspiration not from the work itself but from the authority you gave to whoever evangelized you.

That's very naive.

jac, I used to be one of those kids who accosted people and asked them, "are you saved?!"or "If you die tomorrow do you KNOW if you're going to heaven or not?" I watched how my pastor "evangelized". So call it "naive" all you want, you know I'm right on this.

The only people reading the Bible purely for historical purposes are SO few it is hardly worth using as an argument. Be it historians, anthropologists, materialists, etc.; they hardly make up the great majority of people who open the Bible on even a weekly or monthly basis, much less a daily one. They are the bleak exception, not the rule.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
So then you're willing to accept certain authority outside of the Bible, so long as it doesn't conflict with your theology?

I don't take McCullagh as authoritative. I take him as presenting a well reasoned argument as to what makes a historical hypothesis reasonable and what doesn't.


I wasn't talking about MCCullagh...and you, albeit rather deftly, dodged my question.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
]But they had authority in determining what was contained in that work. By testing it you merely proved that they were correct and that your skepticism was unfounded. As far as "inherent" authority that's why they're called analogies.

You're equivocating on "authority" again. I have that kind of "authority" to determine what I write in my posts. That authority doesn't command your assent, anymore than the textbook writers' authority commands my assent. You believe that the Church's authority commands your assent, and thus the equivocation.

"Authority" simply put means "author's rights". And as I said, its called an analogy for a reason. That science textbook is not from God. The Church IS from God, and the Church is the one that produced the NT writings and proclaimed what books belonged in the Bible canon. Therefore because of that authority(God), it(the Church) demands my assent through the textbook(the Bible).
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
No, not at all. I mean what the Bible means by the Church's authority, which is what the Church has through numerous dialogues and Councils determined as Jesus' and the Apostles true meaning and therefore God's will.

Which is not what you mean by a textbook's writer authority. Just equivocation.

See above...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 12:39 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 2671
Location: Atlanta, GA
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Closet Catholic wrote:
Which you then conflate with the settlement of canon.

No, I don't

Quote:
But why assume that all of revelation is in the canon?

I don't. General revelation is revelation and it isn't contained in the canon alone.

Quote:
Yes, and that same Jesus did establish a Church. But he never established a set of new Scriptures. Not once. Unless you want to beg the question, and assume that revelation = Scripture.

I don't agree that Jesus established "the Church" (using the term as you are). I do think, however, that He recognized the authority of that which is Scripture, and by His authority, so therefore do I.

Further, I'll add that this is an epistemological point. One of the ways I know that Scripture is authoritative is that Jesus said so. Ontologically, I would say "that which is inspired is binding." The question becomes "what is inspired?" Jesus' statements on the matter are sufficient for the OT in particular. The ramification to what we now call the NT aren't hard to see.

Quote:
It is pretty easy to interpret a text after it is written. It’s much harder to do so before. But kidding aside, many (if not most) OT scholars agree that the NT represents a new interpretation of the OT, an interpretation in light of the revelation in Christ.

Many do, but they are wrong in thinking that.

Quote:
Yes, as a person, not a book. The Bible doesn’t teach anything. It contains teaching, but it is not an active agent. So you should say that the Bible is inerrant; that it doesn't contain error.

See my comments to Doom about this.

Quote:
And, what OT? The first Christians used some version of the Septuagint extensively, and in regards to the fact that St. Paul told Timothy to regard the Scriptures that he had been acquainted with from childhood (2. Timothy 3:15), it is important to note that Timothy was Jew of the Diapora, and could easily have used the Septuagint, or Hebrew version of books that aren’t part of the Masoretic canon.

But you do have one big problem: As far as I’m aware, there existed no Jewish canon until, perhaps, ‘the council of Jamnia’ (if there ever was one), which was after the time of Christ, and of no interest to us.

I've been through this in some detail already. I refer you back to it beginning here.

Quote:
What do you mean by ‘an article of faith’? Do you believe that we could find other books or letter that could be recognized to be Scripture? If not, isn’t your position then merely semantics?

I mean something that we accept on authority. And I do not believe that any other books are in principle capable of being recognized as Scripture at this point in history. That would require there to be new apostles sent to "refound" the Church.

Quote:
But how do you recognize it to be the word of God? How do you know that the book of Jude isn’t just a forgery? A ‘burning in the bosom’?

No, not a burning in the bosom. Conservatives authors have I think rightly argued that it dates to the late 60s to the early 90s. That makes it unlikely to be a forgery. Moreover, were someone other than Jude to pen the letter, chances are they would ascribe it to someone better known and respected if they were trying to "borrow" credibility from the attributed author.

We can go on from there and make the case that Jude was the actual author of the text. Arguments against that position are, I think, rather weak.

Quote:
Yes, if you first know that they are inspired. But how do you know it? You claim that it is on the authority of Christ, yet he has never revealed directly what books constitutes Scripture.

No, not if I know they are first inspired. I read the texts first as fallible, errant history regarding the life of Jesus. I take it those sources are accurate enough to reflect Jesus' own thoughts, words, and actions (as are many ancient biographies). One of the things these historical documents affirm is Jesus' high view of what He considered Scripture. I take that view from Him, and that which is Scripture, I apply same view.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 2671
Location: Atlanta, GA
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Mithrandir wrote:
I know. It must be a real pain to deal with the Bible as it actaully reads. Better instead you can just go on "interpreting" it to say what you want it to.

Not painful at all. It's actually rather easy most of the time. You should try it. ;)

Quote:
Sorry, scripture is clearly not on your side on this. If future sin had no effect on salvation, then why did Paul, in all of his letters to the Church of God-which were already believers and therefore "saved" constantly teach them to not sin? Seems rather superluous to talk so much about avoiding sin when avoiding or not avoiding it-that is assuming your theology to be true-makes no wit of difference.

Paul should have spent more time on the Rapture or the first Mellinium, shouldn't he? Or maybe refuting James' words about not being saved by faith alone?

Why do the Scriptures all say that we will be judged on our deeds, what we do? If faith alone saves us, then why is there any judgement for what we've done?

Sin has serious consequences in our lives. Just because one of them isn't eternal damnation doesn't mean Paul didn't need to warn us against it.

Quote:
Which you proved nothing but how subjective and relative your "framework" is. You only presume the Church's framework is circular because you refuse to do the historical work to determine whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church. So long as you remain in that ignorance you can continue to make the claim of circularity. But once the Church is proven to be the true Church your objection flies out the window and so does your "framework". The last options after that would be to either submit to the Church's true authority or disobey God and continue with your beliefs.

Lots of assertions here, not much by way of argument.

Quote:
You say "Catholic" like its a derogatory remark...Thank You! If my humility bothers you I apologize. But if you insist about years ago I went from atheism to Catholicism. A couple years ago I finally shed my last few protetsant qualms having to do with Mary and the Communion of Saints after reading a few books, prayer, and speaking with some really good apologists-both Catholic and protestant. Oh, and just recently I went from strict conservatism to a more classical libertarianism.

You feel as though I and every other Catholic on this board is obviously flawed. I'll make to you the very same challenge that I make to every other protestant I come to. You promise to give me your best shot and I promise to be entirely open and objective to your claims and if you can convince me that your theology is in accord with the Bible then I will immediately convert and go to the next protestant Sunday service.

I'm dead serious. I'm so dead serious that I'll even give you my personal email address and we can correspond there. Because I want to know the Truth. And I promised God that I would follow the Truth no matter where it leads me, even if that it to somewhere I wouldn't expect.

I made that challenge to several protestants here and many more around where I live. None of them here took up my challenge and only a few around where I live are still in contact with me-including some JW's that frequent my neighborhood. Out of three protestant pastors, two I have sent letters asking questions about their teachings that I have yet to get responses from and another who after my first set of questions never responded at all.

It isn't intended as derogatory, so don't take it as such. You also shouldn't attribute motivations and feelings to others. I don't even know what you mean by saying that I think every Catholic here is "flawed." Flawed in what sense? Moral? Of course. We're all morally flawed. Doctrinally? Clearly, otherwise I would be a Catholic. By either token you would consider all Protestants flawed. So your point?

As to your "challenge," you can email me if you like. I think my address is public on my blog, but all the same it's chrismorrison@cccgracealone.org. As I've said before, I've little interest in debating theology on these boards. For the most part, I just answer questions that people have.

But it's good to see that you have a history of allowing your theology to develop in light of evidence you had not previously considered.

Quote:
So what was the shift?

I agreed with Hodges' argument that belief in the Resurrection was not a necessary condition for salvation. I was always uncomfortable with it, but that discomfort didn't cause me to change my view. Studying the issue and conversations with friends regarding the details of his argument did.

Quote:
jac, if take one verse of the Bible, form an entire theology around that one verse, and ignore or explain away others verses that contradict that theology then your method is obviously flawed. You'd be better off just taking a felt-tipped marker and start making your Bible look like a redacted file from the Pentagon.

Even if I conceded that my theology was built on one verse (which I don't), your argument would still sound silly to me. If John 3:16 (among other verses) teaches exactly what I read it to each, then the fact that it so teaches it means that no other verse can contradict it. In other words, one verse is sufficient to establish a doctrine. We don't "count verses" and say, "Well, thirty-three verses teach X, but nine hundred verses teach Y; X and Y are incompatible; so I accept Y." That's positing a contradiction in Scripture. I don't believe there are any such contradictions, so in addition to nearly one hundred other verses, John 3:16 is sufficient to establish salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.

Quote:
Yet Christ promised that He would not leave His Church orphans and that he would always be with them and would send His Spirit to lead us into all the Truth.

I could agree that all revealtion concerning God is complete in Him. But it doesn't follow from that premise that what He revealed could not or would not be further developed or defined. Nor does it follow from that premise that the Apostles did not nor could not endow those approved men who followed their footsteps with their authority(2 Tim 2:2). It seems more reasonable that Christ would want a continued line of shepherds following the Apostles to guide and direct and teach the generations that came after them, and to further teach, form, bless, and confirm new bishops to spread the Apostles traditions doewn to the present.

You're just presuming an ecclesiology I disagree with. I'm glad the monarchical episcopate and apostolic succession make more sense to you than organic elder rule and the autonomy of the local body of believers. They don't to me.

Quote:
jac, I used to be one of those kids who accosted people and asked them, "are you saved?!"or "If you die tomorrow do you KNOW if you're going to heaven or not?" I watched how my pastor "evangelized". So call it "naive" all you want, you know I'm right on this.

The only people reading the Bible purely for historical purposes are SO few it is hardly worth using as an argument. Be it historians, anthropologists, materialists, etc.; they hardly make up the great majority of people who open the Bible on even a weekly or monthly basis, much less a daily one. They are the bleak exception, not the rule.

I certainly don't know you are right on this, and don't you find it rather silly to presume you know better than I do what I know? I read the Bible for purely historical purposes all the time. I know plenty of others that do. But outside of that, even if I granted that few do, that wouldn't prove that it couldn't be done. Just the opposite.

Quote:
I wasn't talking about MCCullagh...and you, albeit rather deftly, dodged my question.

Then please rephrase.

Quote:
"Authority" simply put means "author's rights". And as I said, its called an analogy for a reason. That science textbook is not from God. The Church IS from God, and the Church is the one that produced the NT writings and proclaimed what books belonged in the Bible canon. Therefore because of that authority(God), it(the Church) demands my assent through the textbook(the Bible).

The only way for you to make this argument is to insist that Jesus founded the Church as you understand it, which is a premise I reject. It's certainly unwarranted, as Jesus says less about the Church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures than He does about the canon of Scriptures. You can't, in any case, base this argument on either the authority of Scripture or of Tradition without begging the question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:23 pm
Posts: 4463
Location: Fugro Port in Patterson, LA
Religion: Roman Catholic
Church Affiliations: Cursillo & KofC
Ya know, the simple answer to this is READ THE GOSPELS. There. Refuted 100%.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to refute once saved always saved
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:03 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:55 am
Posts: 4367
Location: Castle Black: my chamber behind the Armory
Religion: Catholic
jac3510 wrote:
Mithrandir wrote:
I know. It must be a real pain to deal with the Bible as it actaully reads. Better instead you can just go on "interpreting" it to say what you want it to.

Not painful at all. It's actually rather easy most of the time. You should try it. ;)


I do it all the time, that's why I'm Catholic.;)

jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
Sorry, scripture is clearly not on your side on this. If future sin had no effect on salvation, then why did Paul, in all of his letters to the Church of God-which were already believers and therefore "saved" constantly teach them to not sin? Seems rather superluous to talk so much about avoiding sin when avoiding or not avoiding it-that is assuming your theology to be true-makes no wit of difference.

Paul should have spent more time on the Rapture or the first Mellinium, shouldn't he? Or maybe refuting James' words about not being saved by faith alone?

Why do the Scriptures all say that we will be judged on our deeds, what we do? If faith alone saves us, then why is there any judgement for what we've done?

Sin has serious consequences in our lives. Just because one of them isn't eternal damnation doesn't mean Paul didn't need to warn us against it.


Sin has eternal consequences because the One we offend is etrnal. Unrepented sins-sins we refuse to separate ourselves from-will be the means by which we will be damned(Rom 6:16).

I'm afraid that you make too light the weight of sins committed by believer. A feather by itself is light when considered in isolation, yet a ton of feathers will crush you. I'm sure you'll agree that in this life constant repentance is necessary and you may just be taking that fact for granted in your theology. Or you may see repentance as just another "work" and therefore superfluous? I don't know.

What I do know is that when you examine John's gospel and his letters John always juxtaposed "believing" and 'doing'(whether that 'doing' was 'eating', or 'loving', or 'obeying') and that these juxtapositions were intentional. Like as in John 6, to believe meant that we must 'eat', to 'eat' meant that we believed. In John's teachings there was always a commandment-an act-that completed our faith. So I think it an error to read one verse in isolation without taking into account not only the rest of the immediate text but the gospel as a whole and his letters as well.

This corresponds with James 2 and with many other comments not only by Paul but in the gospels as well about the necessity of good deeds to complete our faith.

jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
Which you proved nothing but how subjective and relative your "framework" is. You only presume the Church's framework is circular because you refuse to do the historical work to determine whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church. So long as you remain in that ignorance you can continue to make the claim of circularity. But once the Church is proven to be the true Church your objection flies out the window and so does your "framework". The last options after that would be to either submit to the Church's true authority or disobey God and continue with your beliefs.

Lots of assertions here, not much by way of argument.


Then prove my premises wrong. You and I both know that the historical evidence is plentiful in regards to the proof of the Resurrection. Then there should be the same historical evidence in regards to His Church. Look into the evidence and prove me wrong.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
You say "Catholic" like its a derogatory remark...Thank You! If my humility bothers you I apologize. But if you insist about 5 years ago I went from atheism to Catholicism. A couple years ago I finally shed my last few protetsant qualms having to do with Mary and the Communion of Saints after reading a few books, prayer, and speaking with some really good apologists-both Catholic and protestant. Oh, and just recently I went from strict conservatism to a more classical libertarianism.

You feel as though I and every other Catholic on this board is obviously flawed. I'll make to you the very same challenge that I make to every other protestant I come to. You promise to give me your best shot and I promise to be entirely open and objective to your claims and if you can convince me that your theology is in accord with the Bible then I will immediately convert and go to the next protestant Sunday service.

I'm dead serious. I'm so dead serious that I'll even give you my personal email address and we can correspond there. Because I want to know the Truth. And I promised God that I would follow the Truth no matter where it leads me, even if that it to somewhere I wouldn't expect.

I made that challenge to several protestants here and many more around where I live. None of them here took up my challenge and only a few around where I live are still in contact with me-including some JW's that frequent my neighborhood. Out of three protestant pastors, two I have sent letters asking questions about their teachings that I have yet to get responses from and another who after my first set of questions never responded at all.

It isn't intended as derogatory, so don't take it as such. You also shouldn't attribute motivations and feelings to others. I don't even know what you mean by saying that I think every Catholic here is "flawed." Flawed in what sense? Moral? Of course. We're all morally flawed. Doctrinally? Clearly, otherwise I would be a Catholic. By either token you would consider all Protestants flawed. So your point?


I consider protestant theology flawed and a gross deviation from the faith of the Church. That's not the fault of protestants but those who continue to teach them these falsehoods.

As far as what I attribute I do so according to what they say. That's the thing about words and what words are chosen, you can usually infer the temperment of the person by the words they choose.

jac3510 wrote:
As to your "challenge," you can email me if you like. I think my address is public on my blog, but all the same it's chrismorrison@cccgracealone.org. As I've said before, I've little interest in debating theology on these boards. For the most part, I just answer questions that people have.

But it's good to see that you have a history of allowing your theology to develop in light of evidence you had not previously considered.

Thank you. But I've found in my studies that however "my" theology may "develop" my discoveries are merely things that the people of the Church over the centuries had already discovered. I'm merely standing on the shoulders of the real spiritual giants who had already done all of the hard work before me.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
So what was the shift?

I agreed with Hodges' argument that belief in the Resurrection was not a necessary condition for salvation. I was always uncomfortable with it, but that discomfort didn't cause me to change my view. Studying the issue and conversations with friends regarding the details of his argument did.

So you already had a predisposition for favoring the view you didn't yet hold? I don't know if I would truly call that substantive? Not nearly as substantive as going from an evangelical protestant soteriology to even an Anglican or, dare I say, even a Catholic soteriology.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
jac, if I you take one verse of the Bible, form an entire theology around that one verse, and ignore or explain away others verses that contradict that theology then your method is obviously flawed. You'd be better off just taking a felt-tipped marker and start making your Bible look like a redacted file from the Pentagon.

Even if I conceded that my theology was built on one verse (which I don't), your argument would still sound silly to me. If John 3:16 (among other verses) teaches exactly what I read it to teach, then the fact that it so teaches it means that no other verse can contradict it. In other words, one verse is sufficient to establish a doctrine. We don't "count verses" and say, "Well, thirty-three verses teach X, but nine hundred verses teach Y; X and Y are incompatible; so I accept Y." That's positing a contradiction in Scripture. I don't believe there are any such contradictions, so in addition to nearly one hundred other verses, John 3:16 is sufficient to establish salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.

The contradiction lies in that you read "alone" into the verse. The reason why I can show that the Bible contradicts your theology is not because of the Bible but because of what you read into it. Therefore its not the Bible that is flawed, but how you read it.

There are no contradictions in the Bible, nor are there contradictions between the Bible and the Church because the Bible IS the book of the Church-the Body of Christ and the family of God.

We all agree here that Christ alone saves, that is fundamental to being a Christian. Our differences come from how we believe He saves. If you believe that He saves according to your theology then I find that there should be little if any "interpreting" of the text required when speaking about something this important. It should clearly say what you believe in the context not only of the gospel of John itself but along with the whole of the Bible as well as having the witness of the Church from the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age to the present.

Faith "alone" is a protestant invention. Saved by faith through God's grace alone is the Catholic position. The reason why John 3:16 doesn't teach ES is because it doesn't teach "faith alone". The reason it doesn't teach "faith alone" is not only because "alone" doesn't appear in the text but also includes the reasons I posted above.

If John did teach faith alone then Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus of Lyon-all of them being products of John's "school" must have also believed in "faith alone". Yet in none of their works does the theology even appear. In fact their emmense volume of writings show the exact opposite.

On the other hand all of their works support the Catholic position not only in soteriology, but also in ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
Yet Christ promised that He would not leave His Church orphans and that he would always be with them and would send His Spirit to lead us into all the Truth.
I could agree that all revealtion concerning God is complete in Him. But it doesn't follow from that premise that what He revealed could not or would not be further developed or defined. Nor does it follow from that premise that the Apostles did not nor could not endow those approved men who followed their footsteps with their authority(2 Tim 2:2). It seems more reasonable that Christ would want a continued line of shepherds following the Apostles to guide and direct and teach the generations that came after them, and to further teach, form, bless, and confirm new bishops to spread the Apostles traditions down to the present.

You're just presuming an ecclesiology I disagree with. I'm glad the monarchical episcopate and apostolic succession make more sense to you than organic elder rule and the autonomy of the local body of believers. They don't to me.

I'm not "assuming an ecclesiology", I'm going by the data of history.

You seem to be assuming that an episcopate isn't in your term "organic" which I find to be a rather subjective statement. It shouldn't be about "what makes sense to you", it should be about what is true regardless as to what makes sense to you or not.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
jac, I used to be one of those kids who accosted people and asked them, "are you saved?!"or "If you die tomorrow do you KNOW if you're going to heaven or not?" I watched how my pastor "evangelized". So call it "naive" all you want, you know I'm right on this.

The only people reading the Bible purely for historical purposes are SO few it is hardly worth using as an argument. Be it historians, anthropologists, materialists, etc.; they hardly make up the great majority of people who open the Bible on even a weekly or monthly basis, much less a daily one. They are the bleak exception, not the rule.

I certainly don't know you are right on this, and don't you find it rather silly to presume you know better than I do what I know? I read the Bible for purely historical purposes all the time. I know plenty of others that do. But outside of that, even if I granted that few do, that wouldn't prove that it couldn't be done. Just the opposite.


My point wasn't that they can't. My point is that very few if any people approach the Bible objectively. I've seen some historians who say that they read the Bible purely for "historical reasons" utterly trash it. Others may, like myself, approach the Bible as merely a reliable account of history and wind up believers as I did(that is once I decided to remove my prejudices and submit in docility to its words). But that required me to have a predisposition towards its possibility.

The thing about believing in anything is that you have to be already predisposed to its possibility. You and those you know have no problem reading the Bible as history can do so because you are already predisposed to its truth. You have no problem with its history because you also have no problem with Gid or its cosmology.

Those who are predisposed against it are going to read into it whatever they want in order to trash it(just watch all of those shows on the history channel around Easter and Christmas and those who call themselves "history professors"). They approach it already disbelieving in its fundamental claims about Jesus' divinity, etc., as well at any references to cosmology. And they treat it accordingly.

It is impossible to read the Bible as history and be indifferent to what its real message is.
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
I wasn't talking about MCCullagh...and you, albeit rather deftly, dodged my question.

Then please rephrase.


In principle, you went to an authority outside of the Bible to substantiate the Resurrection. Not saying that is in itself unwise. But if you're going to other sources outside the Bible to support a belief, on what principle do you reject other valid historical sources aside from that they don't agree with your theology?
jac3510 wrote:
Quote:
"Authority" simply put means "author's rights". And as I said, its called an analogy for a reason. That science textbook is not from God. The Church IS from God, and the Church is the one that produced the NT writings and proclaimed what books belonged in the Bible canon. Therefore because of that authority(God), it(the Church) demands my assent through the textbook(the Bible).

The only way for you to make this argument is to insist that Jesus founded the Church as you understand it, which is a premise I reject. It's certainly unwarranted, as Jesus says less about the Church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures than He does about the canon of Scriptures. You can't, in any case, base this argument on either the authority of Scripture or of Tradition without begging the question.


Not true at all. But since you're not here to debate theology should I even bother to post how you are wrong? Or if I did would you even give a response beyond saying that I'm merely "preaching"?

I'll do it anyway, just to show how Christ identified the Church with Himself and gave the Church authority on earth that was properly His.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 4   [ 68 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: