Another Question For Protestants

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I am a Catholic I don't think it is overall, but some interpretations of it are, especially when they engage in such contortions to try to prove the doctrines of such denominatins are correct when they are contradictory of each other. This is especially the case when by modifying their views to that of another denomination they could avoid much of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be direct. I will not be offended. You think I am contorting the words of scripture to fit my protestant beliefs when if I just accepted the Roman Catholic Church's teaching, such contortions would be unnecessary.

I do not feel I am contorting scripture. Poorly communicating maybe, but not intentionally contorting. I am simply trying to communicate the New Testament's teaching about Old Testament saints. When scripture tells me that Abraham was justified by faith, I believe it. This is not a solely New Testament concept. Genesis says that Abraham was justified by his faith. Habakkuk says that the just shall live by faith. The book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to explain to Jewish believers how all of the law, the sacrificial system and the like all have their end in Christ.

What is the Catholic Church's teacing on how Old Testament saints are saved?

[RJT]

Bluff,

Yeah, you definitely need to watch your post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after you respond to SDM. Again (see my post to kbfc)You were a bit “brusk” here. Not like you.

You could run circles around me as far as being a better apologist for the Catholic Faith (Bigdaddydvo, I think is going to be pretty good in this regard too – As I recall Pete666 is also good.) and again I am at work so haven’t really comprehended what you two are talking about but at quick glance:

If we correct Max’s words -

[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

to:

Each of these instances has Jesus the Messiah as its SUBJECT (of faith).

Is that what he meant or should have meant?

If this doesn't help the conversation, then ignore it go on and explain to Max what you mean.

Best regards,


RJT

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If we correct Max’s words -

[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

to:

Each of these instances has Jesus the Messiah as its SUBJECT (of faith).

Is that what he meant or should have meant?

If this doesn't help the conversation, then ignore it go on and explain to Max what you mean.

Best regards,


RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

That would probably be more precise. I'm sure that Abraham did not understand that the promise of God was referring to a singular person. And he certainly did not know the name Jesus. So it would not be precise to say that Abraham believe in Jesus, strictly speaking. He believe the promise of God. God was promising Jesus even if Abraham did not fully comprehend. We have the luxury of being on this side of the cross and a fuller revelation. A consistent theme of the New Testament is revealing mysteries that were not previously known. I'm going to start rambling, so I'll shut 'er down now.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the Catholic Church's teacing on how Old Testament saints are saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said partially. But that would conflict with what many protestants believe regarding salvation especially those whose doctrines are strongly influenced by Calvin. Since I have not noticed you in some of our other threads on this then I will ask you the New Guinea question.

Could a man living in New Guinea and who died 1 year after the death of Christ and who absolutely could not have heard the gospel preached possibly have been saved? If you answer no, then I stand by my comments regarding yours. If you answer yes then my question wasn't really addressed to your type of protestantism.

However I also note that your answer to my first question did not really address the question as written, so go back and read it again and respond accordingly. (If you stand by your answers to that question then it follows that you do not consider God's word rendered void by a situation where his word is not accurately preached 100% in its entireity by at least one denomination at every point in history. And if you don't agree that such a conclusion follows then I probably won't respond to you in the future as I am not regarding two other posters since such a belief is a very big logical contortion.)

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the Catholic Church's teacing on how Old Testament saints are saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said partially. But that would conflict with what many protestants believe regarding salvation especially those whose doctrines are strongly influenced by Calvin. Since I have not noticed you in some of our other threads on this then I will ask you the New Guinea question.

Could a man living in New Guinea and who died 1 year after the death of Christ and who absolutely could not have heard the gospel preached possibly have been saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of you dismissing me entirely...
Assuming that the New Guinea man has no knowledge of the teaching of John the Baptist, the nation of Israel, the Old Testament or the God of Abraham, then no there is no possibility of him being saved. I'll elaborate if need be, but I suspect this answer is probably enough to get on your "I'm not regarding this person" list.

[ QUOTE ]
I also note that your answer to my first question did not really address the question as written, so go back and read it again and respond accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. I did not address the question as written, though I stand by my citation of the parable of the building as relevant. Regarding the judgement of their christian teachings, I would say with a fairly substantial degree of confidence that any man who has written at the length that Calvin and Aquinas did are almost certain to make errors at points in their doctrine. I am no expert on either man, but I think that is a fair statement. Unless a man is carried along by the spirit of God as the biblical writers were when they penned the words of scripture, it would be irresponsible in my view to attribute infallability to their teaching.

Like any good protestant I hold scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.

[ QUOTE ]


(If you stand by your answers to that question then it follows that you do not consider God's word rendered void by a situation where his word is not accurately preached 100% in its entireity by at least one denomination at every point in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, but I believe the teaching of the apostles to be preached 100% accurately as found in the pages of scripture (I'm sure you'll agree with this).

At the same time, if I preach a message that displays the glories of Christ but I miss a point of doctrine and fumble God's word at points, God is still at liberty to use the *truth*, not the error that I preach to draw sinners to himself.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't agree that such a conclusion follows then I probably won't respond to you in the future as I am not regarding two other posters since such a belief is a very big logical contortion.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm eager to see if I have failed your test.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Like any good protestant I hold scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer me this then. How did the Catholic Church "get it right" when it compiled the books into the Cannon that would ultimately become the Bible as we know it in the 4th Century, yet subsequently lose its authority to preach authoritively on matters of Faith and Doctrine? Must that authority have been in place at the time of the Bible's compilation?


It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer me this then. How did the Catholic Church "get it right" when it compiled the books into the Cannon that would ultimately become the Bible as we know it in the 4th Century, yet subsequently lose its authority to preach authoritively on matters of Faith and Doctrine? Must that authority have been in place at the time of the Bible's compilation?


It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im still trying to figure out where the Bible says it is the sole and infallible rule of faith and doctrine.... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It often seems Catholics conveniently forget that this era is generally considered the dark ages of human history and it wasn't until the Catholic grip began to loosen in the 1500s and 1600s that the western world was able to pick back up where the Greeks left off in terms of advancement and progress.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like any good protestant I hold scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer me this then. How did the Catholic Church "get it right" when it compiled the books into the Cannon that would ultimately become the Bible as we know it in the 4th Century, yet subsequently lose its authority to preach authoritively on matters of Faith and Doctrine? Must that authority have been in place at the time of the Bible's compilation?


It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice that the substance of my post is not what is being criticised. I have made a case from the Bible - the Bible that both Roman Catholics and Protestants hold as authoritative. Rather than deconstructing the larger argument, you address a tongue in cheek comment made in passing and seem to be attempting to diminish the authority of scripture. Curious.

By the way, I do not buy your premise of how we came to accept the canon of scripture, but it is off topic and largely irrelevant to the matter at hand -- unless of course some of the scriptures that I quoted you do not consider inspired.

[BluffTHIS!]

Max,

Your answer to the New Guinea question is not what I said gets posters ignored by me, and is what I expected you to say. However I do think as I said that such a position is logically preposterous, i.e. allowing for the OT saints to be saved but not the New Guinea man, because you are coming up with justifications to reconcile two apparently conflicting biblical points, the bible stating that they were justified by faith but at the same time your stating that their faith was in Jesus the messiah whom they have never heard of from God. It is that contrived interpretation that does not make sense. They cannot be reconciled without a means for providing the New Guinea man could possibly have been saved, what we in the catholic church call baptism by desire.

Regarding the second issue, you still have not really grasped the followup question to answer when you choose B. It is this: since Jesus and the aposltes taught 100% correctly, is it reasonable to assume that God doesn't care if we here and now are able to receive that same 100% correct interpretation of scripture/revelation? Thus, is it reasonable to believe that having taught the 100% correct and entire truth in apostolic times that God would not necessarily provide that it be so today by there being one true denomination with the others only being partially right? So, is there one true denomination today that teaches the 100% correct and entire truth? (It is not necessary to specify which one.)

Your answer to that determines whether I will ignore you in the future if you care. There is an important theological and logical point in this matter. If you did not read my earlier thread on this matter, What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get, you might wish to.