Debating the Reformation+A Scriptual defense of Predestination

[udontknowmickey]

So BluffThis has laid down the "Catholics vs. Protestants" challenge. I decided to move this to a seperate thread in order to properly address it without messing with spam's thread on predestination (which is interrelated as BluffThis pointed out, but it's much easier to discuss the overarching doctrine in a seperate thread).

This is his post. I have broken it up into points so that I may easier respond to them.

[ QUOTE ]

Well if scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the only standard, then whose interpretation should be followed?


[/ QUOTE ]

First we must define sola scriptura. Quoting James White (www.aomin.org) this is one that is commonly accepted:

[ QUOTE ]

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thus we see that no one interpretation is to be followed in the sense that it is always right and everyone else is wrong where they disagree, BUT, if an interpretation is consistant with the whole of Scripture, then it is binding upon one's consience.

Flipping the question over of course is. If you deny sola scriptura, then clearly you believe that the Chruch's interpretation is to be followed. But the Church has not infalliblely interpreted 95% of the Bible. So now what? It seems to be my interpretation against yours again, does it not? My solution is to point to more of Scripture, which will clarify points and prove other points false.

[ QUOTE ]

The great number of protestant denominations would seem to indicate that lacking an authoritative interpreter, that even more doctrinal disagreements leading to further splits are inevitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

An authoritative interpreter, you mean the pope is that right? But yet today even though Catholics are united under one name, do we not have thousands of Catholics who hold differing beliefs? There are liberal Catholics, there are conservative Catholics. There are Catholics who believe in evolution, there are Catholics who don't. Just because people have the same "banner" under which they fall, does not mean that they are lock step in with the Pope.

Doctrinal disagreement tends to lead to splits, but that does not mean that there isn't an arbiter: Scripture. Just people people can't follow Scripture consistantly does not mean that Scripture is not infallible.

[ QUOTE ]

And if the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of disciples of Christ and the apostles can't be counted upon to have the majority correct view, then how can Calvin or Luther?


[/ QUOTE ]

I pointed to Jesus and Paul as primary, though predestination is evident almost throughout the Bible. If you want I can start citing texts. I also linked to Augustine (400AD or so) which was an early church figure I believe.

Ultimately the question isn't in how many people believe in it, it's in if it's taught in the Bible. Even if no one believed in predestination, if it's taught in Scripture, then it's true. If it's not, then it's false.

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding the passage in Romans, there is more than one interpretation. Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities), but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see you did not even examine the passage in Romans. Let me quote it at length for you, highlighting specific verses that especially relevant. From the ESV Bible, copied from Biblegateway

[ QUOTE ]

1I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.


6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--


[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the key phrase in verse 11) "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call"

Though Rebecca's sons were not born and they had done nothing good or bad. God chose one of them in order that His purpose of election might continue. This is not because of works but because of his call.

Does it sound like they had a choice here? "not because of works but because of his call" seems quite clear.

[ QUOTE ]

12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


[/ QUOTE ]

God elected Jacob (loved), but hated Esau. All of this before they had done anything, before they were born.

[ QUOTE ]

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now Paul responds to an imagined argument that God is being unfair if predestination is true. But instead of saying "God isn't being unfair, it's actually fair," he says that fairness is dependant upon God. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy"

Notice Paul refutes the idea of us determining our destinty yet again in verse 16 when he says, "so it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy"

[ QUOTE ]

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--


[/ QUOTE ]

Now Paul refutes the classic argument that "How can God hold us responsible if everything is predestined?" Notice that his answer is not "but you had free will, so you deserved it", but rather it is "Who are you to talk back to God?"

But yet he still answers the question as to why: God has the right over those he created as a potter over the clay. He has created some for honorable use, and some for dishonorable. He has endured with much patience those vessels of wrath (predestined to perdition) in order to show his glory to vessels of mercy (predestined to heaven).

Another key phrase: Prepared beforehand for glory.

The rest of the chapter is not as relevant, I've covered all of the key points, but you're free to quote from it (or the rest of the Bible for that matter).

Predestination is also quite evident in passages like: John 6 and Ephesians 1

[spaminator101]

This was very well done. Im impressed. Sure wish I had the patience to write for that long.

[BluffTHIS!]

1) Regarding sola scriptura: The bible does not claim to be the only source of divine revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Tradition, as opposed to human/insititutional traditions, is also divine revelation on par with scripture and consists of teachings passed on orally that were not always clearly expounded on the bible. The biblical source for this is the end of the Book of John where it says that there are many other things that Jesus said and did so that the amount of books necessary to record them would fill the world.

2) "Thus we see that no one interpretation is to be followed in the sense that it is always right and everyone else is wrong where they disagree, BUT, if an interpretation is consistant with the whole of Scripture, then it is binding upon one's consience."

But differnet protestant denominations put forth differing interpretations that each believes is in fact consistent with the whole of scripture. Without an authoritative interpreter, this means that God has allowed a situation where we now cannot be sure of possessing the sound doctrine that He taught that those who heard it could. Thus God's word and salvific message is rendered void to some degree.

3) Authoritative Interpreter: This is not just the pope but the church as whole, although any interpretation cannot be valid without being the approval of the Petrine office.

4) Dissenting Catholics: Their dissent in no way renders invalid true doctrine, and even were a majority to hold a differing opinion than the church on a matter of doctrine would not matter. Such dissenters are just reinventing the wheel that the reformation and all the protestant denominations built. If they were people of integrity they would leave and join a denomination with whose beliefs they agreed. The reason they don't is that they would just be another protestant dissenter and no longer the darlings of the liberal media.

5) Predestination: Nothing you wrote or cited in scripture refutes the interpretation of predestination that I gave in the other thread:

"Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities), but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence."

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject.

6) The Bible: Another reason that it is the Catholic Church alone that is the valid interpreter of scripture is that it has been the custodian of holy scripture for close to 2000 years, whereas the protestant theologians were johnny-come-latelys who would not have possessed the bible were it not for the Catholic Church handing it down to their time, especially due to monasteries copying and recopying it during the Middle Ages when much classical learning was lost. Scripture as a whole is to Christians as the Law that was held by the Ark of the Covenant was to Jews, and thus the Catholic Church is as the Ark holding the prescious divine message entrusted to it.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


1) Regarding sola scriptura: The bible does not claim to be the only source of divine revelation.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 makes this very clear:

"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."

1) Scripture is breathed out by God, thus it is God's Word, it is infallible.

2) It is useful for all manners of things so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.

Now I can't prove a universal negative, that there exists no other sources of divine authority, but all you have to do is to provide documentation that another divine authority exists from Scripture. Show me that tradition is alos "God breathed" and infallibe.

[ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Tradition, as opposed to human/insititutional traditions, is also divine revelation on par with scripture and consists of teachings passed on orally that were not always clearly expounded on the bible. The biblical source for this is the end of the Book of John where it says that there are many other things that Jesus said and did so that the amount of books necessary to record them would fill the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean that your tradition gives us information on what else Jesus did in his ministry that isn't contained in the Gospels? Please, share some of this.

[ QUOTE ]

2) "Thus we see that no one interpretation is to be followed in the sense that it is always right and everyone else is wrong where they disagree, BUT, if an interpretation is consistant with the whole of Scripture, then it is binding upon one's consience."

But differnet protestant denominations put forth differing interpretations that each believes is in fact consistent with the whole of scripture. Without an authoritative interpreter, this means that God has allowed a situation where we now cannot be sure of possessing the sound doctrine that He taught that those who heard it could. Thus God's word and salvific message is rendered void to some degree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me, if we take your assumption to be true, that the Roman church is the interpreter, isn't it possible for people to misunderstand the church? But now the salvific message is rendered void! You can't hold your authority up to the same scrutiny you're holding mine to.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Dissenting Catholics: Their dissent in no way renders invalid true doctrine, and even were a majority to hold a differing opinion than the church on a matter of doctrine would not matter. Such dissenters are just reinventing the wheel that the reformation and all the protestant denominations built. If they were people of integrity they would leave and join a denomination with whose beliefs they agreed. The reason they don't is that they would just be another protestant dissenter and no longer the darlings of the liberal media.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly about Scripture and denominations.

[ QUOTE ]

5) Predestination: Nothing you wrote or cited in scripture refutes the interpretation of predestination that I gave in the other thread:

"Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities),


[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that people didn't have an opportunity to respond to God's grace. In fact, Romans 1 makes this clear that everyone has had that opportunity, so they are without excuse.

Romans 1:18-23

[ QUOTE ]

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.


[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]
but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence."

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

To requote verse 11 from Romans 9:11-13

[ QUOTE ]

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


[/ QUOTE ]

Not because of works, but because of his call-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

[ QUOTE ]


6) The Bible: Another reason that it is the Catholic Church alone that is the valid interpreter of scripture is that it has been the custodian of holy scripture for close to 2000 years, whereas the protestant theologians were johnny-come-latelys who would not have possessed the bible were it not for the Catholic Church handing it down to their time, especially due to monasteries copying and recopying it during the Middle Ages when much classical learning was lost. Scripture as a whole is to Christians as the Law that was held by the Ark of the Covenant was to Jews, and thus the Catholic Church is as the Ark holding the prescious divine message entrusted to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bold claim. But is it relevant at all?

To sum up your words:

1) The Protestants would not have had Scripture if Catholics didn't pass it down
2) Therefore your interpretation is false.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just contradicted yourself.


[ QUOTE ]
Now I can't prove a universal negative, that there exists no other sources of divine authority, but all you have to do is to provide documentation that another divine authority exists from Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see that if another separate and equal source of revelation exists, that its validity does not rest soley on scriptural authority or it would not really be equal. The bible itself says that it is not the sole source of revelation: "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). Plus since the gospels were not written down immediately by the apostles, there is a clear precedent for the oral teaching authority of the church.

[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean that your tradition gives us information on what else Jesus did in his ministry that isn't contained in the Gospels? Please, share some of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

The teachings of Holy Tradition mostly overlap what is taught in scripture. Examples of where it goes further have to do with doctrines concering Mary the mother of Jesus.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me, if we take your assumption to be true, that the Roman church is the interpreter, isn't it possible for people to misunderstand the church? But now the salvific message is rendered void! You can't hold your authority up to the same scrutiny you're holding mine to.

[/ QUOTE ]

People misunderstanding true doctrine and certainty or uncertainty of true doctrine being taught are different things.

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed that people didn't have an opportunity to respond to God's grace. In fact, Romans 1 makes this clear that everyone has had that opportunity, so they are without excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are no longer strictly following Calvin. Either some people are predestined without having a chance to respond or all have the chance to repsond. Which is it you believe?

[ QUOTE ]

That's a bold claim. But is it relevant at all?

To sum up your words:

1) The Protestants would not have had Scripture if Catholics didn't pass it down
2) Therefore your interpretation is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your 2nd point should read: "2) Therefore they could not have been the custodians of sacred scripture and thus could not be the authentic interpreters of same."

If God wants us to hear his true message pure and unchanged, then there has to be a true church to carry on and proclaim that message. And it is the Catholic Church that has all the marks of the true church.

[udontknowmickey]

Notice that this is a debate between two viewpoints: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola ecclesia (The Church alone).

I am taking the position that Scripture is our infallible rule of faith, while BluffThis is taking the position that the Church is our infallible rule of faith.

With this in mind, the demands of proof must be equal on both sides.

And back to the debate:
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.


[/ QUOTE ]


You have just contradicted yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]
Where? Am I saying A and ~A at the same time somewhere? Please demonstrate how this is so.

[ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see that if another separate and equal source of revelation exists, that its validity does not rest soley on scriptural authority or it would not really be equal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do I? If one authority claims to be sufficient and it's true, wouldn't it then be the only necessary authority?

All I'm asking you to prove is that Tradition is at the same level as Scripture. Is it God breathed? Is it infallible? If Scripture were insufficient, it would say so would it not? (this is what you address below, which I will address myself)

[ QUOTE ]

The bible itself says that it is not the sole source of revelation: "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).


[/ QUOTE ]

Quick question: Do you hold to the partim-partim view or to ‘material sufficiency view of Tradition?

in quick definition: material sufficiency teaches that all of God’s revelation is at least implicitly contained in Scripture.

patrim patrim view teaches that part of God's revelation is in Scripture and part in Tradition.

Now, if you hold to the material sufficiency view, you have no reason to cite this, since you believe that Scripture is sufficient itself as well.

If you hold to the patrim patrim view, you must now provide a defense that Paul actually taught things like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, The Infallibility of the Pope and so on and so forth. Without this, your tradition falls far short.

Thus so without any historical support of Paul preaching something like the Immaculate conception, your argument isn't worth anything.

May I also mention that the Roman Church is divided on this issue?

But I will respond to the verse anyways, reading the verses in context as well as remembering the historical context we see that the meaning is evident. In verse 13-15 of the same chapter

[ QUOTE ]

13But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

and we remember that Paul paid a visit to the church in Thessolinica (Acts 17). Thus all Paul is saying is that "I preached the gospel to you before, now I am writing this letter to you. Remember the gospel which I preached to you and is now contained in writings"

Now to turn the tables: Has the Roman Church infallibly interpreted 2 Thess. 2:15 or given an infallible definition of the term "tradition"?

I'm afraid you can look all over for that, and you will find a lot of confusion within the Roman Church on that exact topic.

[ QUOTE ]

Plus since the gospels were not written down immediately by the apostles, there is a clear precedent for the oral teaching authority of the church.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it was originally in oral form (as was the Hebrew Bible), does not mean that Scripture is not sufficient now. Now that all the oral form is put into writing, we now have a sufficient Scripture.

Remember the Bereans in Acts 17.
[ QUOTE ]

10The brothers[a] immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.


[/ QUOTE ]

They were more noble than those in Thessalonica and the examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so . Notice that they were "more noble!" They weren't rebuked by Paul for testing things against Scripture. Paul didn't say "Hey! I'm an Apostle, I have Divine Revelation! What I say isn't contained in Scripture" No, the view that we need a secondary revelation in Tradition is completely denied here.

[ QUOTE ]



The teachings of Holy Tradition mostly overlap what is taught in scripture. Examples of where it goes further have to do with doctrines concering Mary the mother of Jesus.



[/ QUOTE ]

Has the Church infallibly defined one single tradition that was passed on by Jesus that isn't contained in Scripture? Just because you now believe in a Mediatrix and Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary, doesn't mean that the Jesus taught it.

[ QUOTE ]


People misunderstanding true doctrine and certainty or uncertainty of true doctrine being taught are different things.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. These were my exact points about the authority of Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]


Then you are no longer strictly following Calvin. Either some people are predestined without having a chance to respond or all have the chance to repsond. Which is it you believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do tell me where Calvin denied Romans 1. People are predestined to Hell and to Heaven, before they were born, before they did anything. This doesn't mean that while they live God does not actively harden or soften their hearts towards him. If you're predestined to Hell, God works in you (vessel prepared for destruction) to sin and to deny Him so that His judgements are right. If you're predestined to Heaven, God works in you (vessel prepared for glory) to have faith and to do good works. Each of these, because God is just and is our definition of just, is perfectly righteous and just.
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

That's a bold claim. But is it relevant at all?

To sum up your words:

1) The Protestants would not have had Scripture if Catholics didn't pass it down
2) Therefore your interpretation is false.

Your 2nd point should read: "2) Therefore they could not have been the custodians of sacred scripture and thus could not be the authentic interpreters of same."


[/ QUOTE ]

so really you have 3 points

1) Protestants would not have had Scripture without Catholics passing it down
2) Since the Catholics passed it down, it has the authority to interpret Scripture, and Protestants do not
3) You are a Protestant, therefore your interpretation is false.

You have yet to establish 2, that passing it down implies authority to interpret.

Let us also remember Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for their tradition. We would not have had our Old Testament without them passing it down, but yet Jesus says clearly that their interpretations are oftentimes completely wrong. How is the Pharisee's traditions different from the Roman Church's?

[ QUOTE ]

If God wants us to hear his true message pure and unchanged, then there has to be a true church to carry on and proclaim that message. And it is the Catholic Church that has all the marks of the true church.


[/ QUOTE ]

To put into syllogism form again:

1) If God wants us to hear his true message pure and unchanged, then there has to be a true church to carry on and proclaim that message.
2) The Roman Church has all the marks of a true church.

You have yet to establish 1. You have yet to establish that God wants us to hear his message pure and unchanged. You have yet to establish what "the marks of a true church" are. You have yet to establish that the Roman Church has these. You have yet to establish that having the marks of a true church implies that it is a true church.

Please, clarify your logic.

You still have yet to provide a defense for your interpretation of Romans 9 where you claim that it is only

"by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject."

Tell me, is this what the Roman Church teaches? Where does it find it's Scriptual support for such an interpretation. How is my interpretation wrong then?

You haven't touched Romans 9 yet. If you want to talk about predestination I suggest you do so. We can also talk about John 6 and Eph. 1 which are other passages that clearly teach predestination. I highly suggest you do some reading, as this discussion continues I will bring them up.

[David Sklansky]

"I never claimed that people didn't have an opportunity to respond to God's grace. In fact, Romans 1 makes this clear that everyone has had that opportunity, so they are without excuse."

"Then you are no longer strictly following Calvin. Either some people are predestined without having a chance to respond or all have the chance to repsond. Which is it you believe?"

In fact he would then not even believe in predestination in any sense of the word that is relevant to people. As you well kmow (as does Not Ready deep down).

This Calvin fellow sounds pretty much like a moron to me.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just contradicted yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? Am I saying A and ~A at the same time somewhere? Please demonstrate how this is so.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'd like to avoid these tall multi-point posts so I am going to address different points in separate posts and suggest you do the same as well.)

Your two statements above can only not be contradictory of each other if you maintain that there are in fact more sources of divine revelation other than the bible, and that those other sources of revelation are not infallible rules of faith as well. So clarify your position:

1) Are there other sources of divine revelation other than the bible?

2) Do those other sources of revelation contain infallibly true doctrine?

Also note that I am only talking about general revelation, which ceased with the death of the last apostle (though may have been written down later by an apostle's disciples as redactors of his works, or passed on orally from them), and not with special revelation in which God directly or by agency might have imparted some divine knowledge to individuals at later dates but which is not necessary for Christians to believe if they choose not to.

Also note regarding your comments on tradition, that HOLY TRADITION referred to by the Catholic Church as part of revelation along with the bible, though that which was originally passed along orally, is NOT the same as human/institutional traditions which is what Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees regarding, since they were imposing burdens of belief and practice not required by the Law.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
so really you have 3 points

1) Protestants would not have had Scripture without Catholics passing it down
2) Since the Catholics passed it down, it has the authority to interpret Scripture, and Protestants do not
3) You are a Protestant, therefore your interpretation is false.

You have yet to establish 2, that passing it down implies authority to interpret.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be evident, as God would not entrust the gift of divine revelation without the authority to interpret it. If you disagree, then logically it follows that non-Christians are just as qualified to intrepret Christian scripture as Christians.

[BluffTHIS!]

I was going through your post and excerpting parts to respond to when I came to this:

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to establish that God wants us to hear his message pure and unchanged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably through debating with you unless you acknowledge this to be a silly statement.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You still have yet to provide a defense for your interpretation of Romans 9 where you claim that it is only

"by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject."

Tell me, is this what the Roman Church teaches? Where does it find it's Scriptual support for such an interpretation. How is my interpretation wrong then?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't acutally given a clear response that differs from the interpretation I gave above, which is why I asked you what you believe. So answer the following question:

Does your interpretation of the term "predestination" in the NT mean that some people are predestined to eternal punishment, without ever having had the opportunity to accept the call of the gospel?

If you answer yes then you are in fact a Calvinist. If your answer is no, then you are not, and your beliefs on this issue can't differ much from mine, those of the Catholic Church.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

I was going through your post and excerpting parts to respond to when I came to this:

Quote:
You have yet to establish that God wants us to hear his message pure and unchanged.



I am probably through debating with you unless you acknowledge this to be a silly statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about Jesus talking in parables?

Quoting Mark 4)

The Purpose of the Parables
10And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12so that

"they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven."

Does this sound like God wants "us" to hear his message pure and unchanged? It seems like you have to justify your statement.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to establish what "the marks of a true church" are. You have yet to establish that the Roman Church has these. You have yet to establish that having the marks of a true church implies that it is a true church.

[/ QUOTE ]

The marks of the true church:

ONE
HOLY
CATHOLIC
APOSTOLIC

The link to the rather long section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains this can be found here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM) .

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

(I'd like to avoid these tall multi-point posts so I am going to address different points in separate posts and suggest you do the same as well.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This is fine, as long as you address the points I make.

[ QUOTE ]

Your two statements above can only not be contradictory of each other if you maintain that there are in fact more sources of divine revelation other than the bible, and that those other sources of revelation are not infallible rules of faith as well. So clarify your position:

1) Are there other sources of divine revelation other than the bible?

2) Do those other sources of revelation contain infallibly true doctrine?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would affirm that it is within God's power to grant divine revelation through dreams and foretellings, I cannot say that I have done enough research into Scripture to say that these have ceased completely. Thus I affirm 1

I will also affirm a qualified 2, these revelations can contain true and infallible teachings on the condition that those teachings are taught in Scripture. Thus I deny that there is continual revelation that cannot be confirmed or is contradictory to Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

Also note that I am only talking about general revelation, which ceased with the death of the last apostle (though may have been written down later by an apostle's disciples as redactors of his works, or passed on orally from them), and not with special revelation in which God directly or by agency might have imparted some divine knowledge to individuals at later dates but which is not necessary for Christians to believe if they choose not to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I am in agreement here, with the exception that I believe all of general revelation that is necessary has been written down in what we call the Bible.

Though, last I checked, doesn't the Roman Church claim to have continued revelation from God in it's teachings on Mary being the Mediatrix?

[ QUOTE ]



Also note regarding your comments on tradition, that HOLY TRADITION referred to by the Catholic Church as part of revelation along with the bible, though that which was originally passed along orally, is NOT the same as human/institutional traditions which is what Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees regarding, since they were imposing burdens of belief and practice not required by the Law.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can acknowledge that you believe it to be different, I do request that you establish the validity of such a tradition, since it seems like there is a lot in Catholicism that is required but isn't explicit from Scripture, which seems to put the Roman teachings on some unsteady footing. The Seven Sacraments come to mind.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]



This should be evident, as God would not entrust the gift of divine revelation without the authority to interpret it. If you disagree, then logically it follows that non-Christians are just as qualified to intrepret Christian scripture as Christians.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like Jesus expected the Pharisees (non-Christians are they not?) to properly interpret Scripture. Does he not say repeatedly "Have you not read?" in Matthew?

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]



You haven't acutally given a clear response that differs from the interpretation I gave above, which is why I asked you what you believe. So answer the following question:

Does your interpretation of the term "predestination" in the NT mean that some people are predestined to eternal punishment, without ever having had the opportunity to accept the call of the gospel?

If you answer yes then you are in fact a Calvinist. If your answer is no, then you are not, and your beliefs on this issue can't differ much from mine, those of the Catholic Church.


[/ QUOTE ]

My answer is yes, not because I want to adhere to some Calvin fellow, but because I believe Scripture teaches this. People are predestined for glory, or for destruction.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this sound like God wants "us" to hear his message pure and unchanged? It seems like you have to justify your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
This Calvin fellow sounds pretty much like a moron to me.

[/ QUOTE ]


Harsh but true. Having to explain semantical meaning and logical thinking takes too much effort. I'm through with him and will only respond to other posters in this thread who might wish to debate.

[Subfallen]

One simple question. Would God first reveal the true interpretation of Scripture to an an egomaniac and sadistic murderer (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm)? If you cannot answer "no" to this then YSSCKY.

Edited to add: I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the author of the referenced web site, it was merely the first Google hit containing a reference to the relevant historical data. (Calvin's execution of Servetus.)

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


One simple question. Would God first reveal the true interpretation of Scripture to an an egomaniac and sadistic murderer? If you cannot answer "no" to this then YSSCKY.

Edited to add: I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the author of the referenced web site, it was merely the first Google hit containing a reference to the relevant historical data. (Calvin's execution of Servetus.)


[/ QUOTE ]

letsee, a number of issues with your point

1) Did I claim to God first revealing true interpretation to John Calvin? No

2) Even if I did claim that God first revealed true interpretation to John Calvin, it does not logically lead me to "seriously consider killing myself" (had to google that). Paul was an egomaniac and sadistic mass murderer by some standards, yet he wrote most of the NT.

3) Who John Calvin is and what he has done is irrelevant to how consistant his statements are to Scripture. If they are properly derived from Scripture, then i agree with it. If they are not (and there is some that our Reformers held to that wasn't) then I don't. My authority is Scripture, not Calvin, not Luther. Calvinism is just a name to contrast against things like Arminianism. I believe Calvinism is the simply the most consistant view of the Bible.

If you believe there is no God YSSCR (you should seriously consider repenting)

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. - Paul in Athens (Acts 17:30-32)

[udontknowmickey]

To sum it all up, I have responded to every single argument and statement that Bluff has made in his claims against Scripture and Orthodox Christianity. I have demonstrated that his requirements on an authority were intellectually dishonest in that they were unequally applied to both sides and that his interpretation of some verses were outright incorrect when taken into the context of the surrounding passages and the Book as a whole. I have given (as best as I was able) an interpretation of one specific passage (Romans 9) that clearly refutes the idea of predestination because of a foreknowledge of free choices and affirms complete predestination before people are born, before they have done anything, not because of what they have done. With all the questions I have posed, Bluff has refused to answer, ignored, or asserted things without justification. This finally dropped into simply saying that Calvin was a moron and he didn’t want to respond to this thread anymore.

In short: I (in actuality, the Christian worldview) has defend itself against all claims and attacks, demonstrating them to be irrational and superfluous. Bluff’s worldview has not furnished him with any answers other than those that are irrelevant or circular. No interpretation, no proof, just assertions. This is all documented below. Basically this was a no contest discussion.

Now, we didn’t get into the question of justification, which is a major dividing line between Catholics and Protestants, but I will take some time to emphasize that difference.

Protestants believe that we are justified, or made righteous (same term in the Greek), by faith alone through Christ alone, by God’s grace alone, apart from works. There is plenty of Scripture to back this up (which I will provide if anyone is interested). This means that the Catholic system of beliefs which is taught by Rome which claims that we are justified by faith and works is completely inconsistent with Scripture and thus Catholics who follow the teachings of Rome are worshipping a false God. This places them (as David observed) in the exact same boat as everyone else before the throne of God.

Bluff, I know that you probably will reject this outright, but my claim to Scripture compels me to make this call. God commands you (and all of us) to repent of our false idols, of our false Gods, of the Pope, of materialism, of money, of internet addiction, even of *gasp* gambling addiction. All who die without knowing the saving grace of being justified by faith alone will be lost, but this means that those who come to know it now will be saved. I know that I on my own cannot convince you, or anyone else of that, but it is His prerogative to have mercy on whom He wills. I encourage you to read the Scriptures, to seek God, to meditate on the Holiness of His commands. If you come to the realization that you have fallen short, that you can’t work your own salvation, that all that you’ve done has been sin, then know that God has already begun His work in you. Cry out to Christ for deliverance, and He will save you, for the first fruits of regeneration is repentance.

To God Alone Be the Glory.

The summary:

BluffThis challenged me with a number of statements regarding Protestant doctrine and interpretation of predestination.

BluffThis: If you believe that Scripture is to be your only infallible authority, who’s interpretation is to be followed?

Me:
An interpretation is to be authoritative only if it is consistent with Scripture. No one interpretation is to be followed blindly without checking it against Scripture. A question that I wish I thought of at the time, but will now interject now is: Who’s interpretation of the Pope do we follow? Silly question right? But it’s the same one that’s being posed against Scripture. We can also ask another one. Who’s interpretation of the interpreter do we follow? And so on down the line.

BluffThis: You’re wrong. The Roman Church teaches the authority of tradition. Support for this is found in the end of the book of John where it says that Jesus did a lot of other things that weren’t recorded.

Me: Can you demonstrate one thing that Jesus taught that was not explicitly contained in Scripture?

BluffThis: Doctrines of Mary.

I have let this one slip by in my rush to answer his responses, but a follow up:
Me: Can you demonstrate that Jesus talked about this? You talked about the silence of church history on predestination (which I have shown irrelevant), but what does church history say on the doctrine of Mary? Can you give one early church father quote that teaches the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? The Bodily Assumption?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Bluff: All the denominations out there means that sola scriptura (the doctrine that Scripture is to be the only infallible authority) is false

Me: The number of denominations is irrelevant to the truthfulness of Scripture. The case is easily seen when applying the same exact statements to the Roman Church, replacing denomination with systems of thought. All the different systems of thought means that the Roman Church isn’t an authoritative interpreter. He responded in much the same way I did. We are back to step 1.

Bluff: Without an authoritative interpreter, this means that God has allowed a situation where we cannot be sure of possessing the sound doctrine that He taught.

Me: So what?

Bluff: Take that back! I’m not going to respond to you unless you take that back!

Me: It seems like God has allowed it in the past, like when he sends Jesus to speak in parables (quotes Mark 4) where Scripture says the reason is so that those who hear may not understand. It sounds like God doesn’t want them to hear! Thus you must defend your statement when you say that God wants us all to be sure of possessing sound doctrine.

Bluff: Calvin was a moron; I’m not going to talk to you anymore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a side note, we got sidetracked in the issue of divine revelation, I misunderstood what he meant, and he thought I was contradicting myself.

Bluff: No early church leaders believed in predestination

Me: Whether or not early church leaders believed in predestination is irrelevant if it can be shown from Scripture. Even then, I provided you with a link to Augustine’s refutation of the Pelagian Heresy, which is filled with predestination. I noticed you didn’t bother to read this.

Bluff: (No response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Bluff: There are different interpretations of predestination. I believe that it means that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative response, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

Me: I presented my view from Scripture, quoting texts which demonstrated very clearly that God prepared some vessels for destruction and some for glory. That God hated Esau and loved Jacob, before they had done anything good or bad, not because of works, but because of his call. This demonstrates (without further Scripture that would lead us to deny these truths and interpret them in a different manner) that God choose things before what Jacob and Esau actually did, and not because of works. Thus the idea of foreseen negative response is refuted

Bluff: Your passage doesn’t contradict my interpretation.

~~~~~~~~~

Bluff: Without the Roman Church, Protestants would not have had the Bible. God has entrusted to the Roman church the Bible, thus it is the only interpreter of the Bible.

Me: But the Roman Church wouldn’t have had the OT without the Hebrews… therefore the Pharisees are the only interpreter of the Bible

Bluff: (No response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Bluff: But God wouldn’t have given the Bible without also giving someone to interpret it. Otherwise non-Christians could interpret the Bible.

Me: Doesn’t Jesus require that the Pharisees properly interpret the Bible in all his rebukes to them? Aren’t the Bereans in Acts 17 commended for testing what Paul says against Scripture instead of rebuked for checking what an Apostle says?

Bluff: (no response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Me: Has the Roman Church infallibly defined what it means by tradition? Has the Roman Church infallibly given an interpretation of any of the passages we are citing? If so, please quote them, if not, why are you arguing your interpretation against mine again? Has the Roman Church listed one single thing that Jesus or the Apostles taught that aren’t contained in the Scriptures? Can you defend any of this historically?

Bluff (no response)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Subfallen: Would God first reveal the true interpretation of Scripture to an egomaniac and sadistic murderer (link to article)? If you cannot answer “no” to this, then YSSCKY.

Me: Your statement is riddled with fallacies (cites 3). I follow the Bible and not a person. I agree with Calvin’s interpretations only as far as they agree with Scripture.

The end.

[David Sklansky]

"Bluff, I know that you probably will reject this outright, but my claim to Scripture compels me to make this call. God commands you (and all of us) to repent of our false idols, of our false Gods, of the Pope, of materialism, of money, of internet addiction, even of *gasp* gambling addiction. All who die without knowing the saving grace of being justified by faith alone will be lost, but this means that those who come to know it now will be saved. I know that I on my own cannot convince you, or anyone else of that, but it is His prerogative to have mercy on whom He wills. I encourage you to read the Scriptures, to seek God, to meditate on the Holiness of His commands. If you come to the realization that you have fallen short, that you can’t work your own salvation, that all that you’ve done has been sin, then know that God has already begun His work in you. Cry out to Christ for deliverance, and He will save you, for the first fruits of regeneration is repentance."

I hope Pair The Board is reading this BluffTHIS. What goes around comes around.

[BluffTHIS!]

Just as Peter666 is a catholic version of NotReady, he is a protestant version of BossJJ in his thinking and circular reasoning and claims of refuting when he was the one who couldn't answer a question logically or present a set of beliefs that are internally consistent.