Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    As a former Protestant, I'm going to call bull on this.
    Go ahead and tell us all how you know the doctrinal content of the bible when there are so many Protestant denominations around that hold to many divergent doctrines derived from the scriptures.

    Prediction - a lame excuse will be given to avoid the problem. If by some fluke an answer is given, the answer will not properly address the issue.

    What is the issue?

    The reformation principle of private interpretation currently held by modern Protestants means no Protestant has any authority to cause anyone else to believe any doctrine derived from the scriptures. As there is no authority within Protestantism, then the logical outcomes of private interpretation are many competing understandings of the same texts. Hence collectively, Protestantism is a very strong witness to one of the Reformation principles concluding to agnosticism.

    We see the logic of the Reformation play out in Protestantism’s closet agnosticism through the inter generational loss of any Christian faith experienced in northern Europe, and now in North America. The once Protestant areas are now largely secular, because former Protestant generations now have children that no longer believe anything biblical.

    The endless debates over doctrine between Protestants leads to only a few possible outcomes.

    1) Doctrine is not important for the debates show Protestants disagree with each other and the debates never fully resolve doctrinal problems. The non importance of doctrine means Protestantism is in principle indifferent to doctrine, and therefore open to agnosticism.

    2) Doctrine is important but Protestantism does not have the authority within its system to resolve doctrinal differences in a way as to avoid agnosticism about any particular doctrine. The lack of authority within Protestantism concludes to a closet agnosticism.

    3) Doctrine is either important or not, but Protestants know they do not have any certainty on any doctrine because of the principle of private interpretation. So Protestants have in large numbers decided to leave Protestantism and become formal agnostics.

    The above three points all conclude to an inability within Protestantism to resolve doctrinal problems, thereby opening the Reformation based denominations to agnosticism.

    Even the existence of denominations indicates Protestantism is agnostic. Denominations infer each group has a number of distinct doctrines and practices divergent from other denominations. As no denomination has authority over any other, any person is free to come and go, or even form their own denomination. And no one Protestant or group of Protestants have any authority within any denomination to enforce opposing doctrine. Consequently, from the historical witness of denominationalism, Protestantism is fundamentally agnostic.

    Because Protestantism is fundamentally agnostic, Protestant dominated countries will always simultaneously tend towards a collective schizophrenia of fundamentalist dogmatism and liberal unbelief, directed towards agnosticism and secularism. This is what we see unfold in North America, with the once Protestant nation become a nation divided into the post Protestant secular America and the fundamentalist Protestant bible belt.

    JM

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      Go ahead and tell us all how you know the doctrinal content of the bible when there are so many Protestant denominations around that hold to many divergent doctrines derived from the scriptures.
      <snip anti-Protestant screed>
      ...and every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You claimed they would say otherwise, which is nonsense.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        ...and every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You claimed they would say otherwise, which is nonsense.
        You don't know every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You have only made a statement without evidence. Even if I grant that your statement is true, (which it isn't), you have not answered the problem, because every single Protestant uses the principle of private interpretation. So when confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, they have to conclude that collectively Protestantism does not know the full doctrinal content of the bible. Some may claim to know the doctrinal content, but that's just another false claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny within Protestantism.

        Because of the nature of Protestantism within its intrinsic flaws, wherever Protestantism holds sway over a society for a few centuries, the society will eventually abandon its form of Christianity and fall into secularism. Protestantism is false for the following reasons -
        1. No authority from God, hence any authority within Protestantism is human and not divine. Hence Protestantism is not from God.
        2. The principle of private interpretation is unbiblical, and unworkable.
        3. The principle of sola scriptura is unbiblical, and unworkable and an empty cliché.
        4. The principle of the perspicuity of the scriptures is subjective and unworkable.
        5. Protestantism is based upon the work of the reformers who routinely invented new doctrines. Such doctrines are not binding on anyone for none of them are from God.
        6. The doctrine of double imputation as perhaps the most important Reformation doctrine is entirely the work of human invention and has no place in the work of God. Nobody can successfully defend the doctrine of double imputation.
        7. The history of Protestantism shows a profound schizophrenia concerning doctrine. One must simultaneously rail against Rome and her doctrines, but within Protestantism anyone can and does believe just about anything at all.
        8. Protestantism is based upon a fictional narrative that says the Reformers went back to the simple gospel of the early church. The narrative is false making the Reformation false and Protestantism false.
        9. Protestantism permits almost any sin except sins against faith. Hence Protestantism is not realist.
        10. Protestantism is based upon the false doctrine of nominalism promoted by William of Ockham which infected Luther's thinking.



        JM
        Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-16-2016, 02:49 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          You don't know every single one of them is convinced that they know the doctrinal content of the bible. You have only made a statement without evidence. Even if I grant that your statement is true, (which it isn't), you have not answered the problem, because every single Protestant uses the principle of private interpretation. So when confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, they have to conclude that collectively Protestantism does not know the full doctrinal content of the bible. Some may claim to know the doctrinal content, but that's just another false claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny within Protestantism.

          <snip yet another anti-Protestant rant which has nothing to do with the topic>
          Ah, nice strawman you've constructed there. When confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, Protestants can respond in various ways. Some doctrines are not considered a matter of salvation, so there is freedom to disagree. They can also point to disagreements within Catholicism (e.g., preterism and futurism were both developed by Catholics, Molinism and double predestination were both developed by Catholics, etc.). Alternatively, they can simply declare that other denominations got it wrong - there is no concern within Protestantism that it needs to be monolithic.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #35
            Double imputation is a theory of Calvinism which states

            Double imputation refers to the imputation of believers' sin to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. It is closely related to the Reformed doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Passages like 2 Corinthians 5:21, are employed to argue for a dual imputation – the imputation of one's sin to Christ and then of his righteousness to us.[4]
            The Father who credits sin to Jesus does so in the divine courtroom where a verdict is made upon Christ. The problems with this are as follows. The Father is only Father of Jesus and not of sinners until sinners are adopted as sons and daughters of God. So when the imputation of sin to Jesus is made, it is the Father of Jesus who imputes sin to the Son. The Father is then either 1) Father or 2) judge over Jesus within the divine courtroom.

            A) If the Father is acting as Father over Jesus, then the Father imputes sin to the Son. But for the Father to impute sin to the Son, the Father must be acting as Father. Hence the perfect Father imputes sin to the Son, as a perfect act. The Father's perfect act implies no deficiency in the Fatherhood of the Father, and no deficiency in the Son accepting the judgement of the Father concerning the Son. for the Father to be Father and the Son to be Son, both the Father and Son act towards each other perfectly as Father to Son and Son to Father. Yet for the Father to impute sin to the Son and the Son to accept the imputation of sin by the Father is for the Father to act imperfectly and make a false judgement about the Son. And the Son makes a false judgement about the Father's judgement of the Son. Hence because the Father's imputation of sin to the Son is false, and the acceptance of the Father's imputation of sin by the Son is also false, both the Father and the Son are not the divine Father and Son of the Trinity. For the Trinity is the true God that does not err.

            B) If the Father acts as judge, then the Father is not acting according to His nature, as Father. Also the Father is acting as judge to make a false judgement. So the judgement over Jesus is against the nature of the Father and against the nature of a true judge.

            Other problems -

            The hard sell behind the double imputation theory is the Luther narrative projected onto all sinners. We as the collective sinful masses are expected to have the same needs Luther had. We are all supposed to feel guilty about our sins and have a dire need for assurance of salvation. The solution to the sin problem is justification by faith alone, whereby the extrinsic, or alien righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner by faith alone. The problems with this hard sell are –

            1) Faith alone is said to be the cause of assurance of salvation which resolves the guilt problem posed within the Luther narrative. The sinner has faith, therefore he has peace with God through the extrinsic righteousness that causes justification. Nothing other than faith alone is required to attain justification, so only faith alone grants assurance of justification. Such assurance is meant to bring confidence of salvation and relief from guilt. And because faith alone is the instrumental cause of justification, then faith as an instrument is the key cause of assurance of one’s right standing before God. So if faith is removed, the instrument of justification is removed and right standing and assurance are also removed and the Luther based, hard sell is invalidated.

            Yet biblically, that is exactly what occurs in heaven for the elect. The elect get to see God face to face and faith in this life is lost in the next life. So the assurance of faith alone in this life, requires that the sinner enters into heaven without faith as the effect of justification attained by faith alone. So the elect in heaven no longer have the assurance of peace with God by faith alone, yet have a stronger assurance of peace with God, without faith. So the Luther based, hard sell requires that sinners have faith alone that gives assurance, but are also required to believe that faith is also not required in heaven, whereby the sinner has greater assurance of salvation in heaven.

            But to have an assurance of salvation without faith alone is equivalent to the same assurance the non-elect have of salvation without faith and thereby assurance entails a contradiction. Yet from a contradiction anything follows, then because faith alone and no faith bring assurance of justification, then faith alone and no faith also bring no assurance of justification. Hence the hard sell that faith alone brings assurance is both true and false. But what is both true and false is contradictory. Hence the Luther based, hard sell is invalidated.

            2) Assurance comes within the double imputation theory with all of its accompanied problems such as the charge of legal fiction, extrinsicism of righteousness, nominalist based understanding of the divine declarations, biblical verses that contradict the theories claims, and the charges of the false god. The many problems and errors within the theory falsify the claim that the sinner has assurance of salvation.

            3) Assurance comes by faith alone, but according to James 2:24, 1 Cor 13, faith is not alone. So the theory requires that faith alone justifies, but it is a faith that is not alone. So assurance is said to be by faith alone, but faith is never alone. So assurance is apart from accompanying works and love, which are nevertheless evidenced within the life of the believer. So saving faith is always with works and love, but works and love do not provide assurance. So saving faith is only saving if accompanied by works and love as causes of saving faith. So assurance of justification is by faith alone, but not by faith alone. As assurance entails a contradiction, then assurance by faith alone is both true and false, hence there is no assurance by faith alone.

            4) Assurance comes by faith alone, but scripture says men are saved by hope (Rom 8:24). So faith alone justifies, but hope saves. Yet justification is to be saved from the wrath of God, and hence be saved. So justification entails being saved, and thereby entails hope. So justification is by faith alone, and faith plus hope. So assurance of justification is by faith alone, but not alone. As assurance entails a contradiction, then assurance by faith alone is both true and false, hence there is no assurance by faith alone.

            5) Assurance by faith alone destroys the virtue of hope. For hope is not required when absolute assurance is given. But because hope is a virtue given by God, faith alone theology is contradicted by what God does for the sinner. As faith alone theology entails a contradiction, then assurance by faith alone is both true and false, hence there is no assurance by faith alone.

            6) Faith alone theology entails the claim that God requires an absolute perfection in human action as the just requirement of the law. Any breach of the law causes death and subsequently requires that God place the sinner in Hell for a breach in the law. Yet scripture witnesses to a clear distinction between sin that does kill and sin that does not kill (1 John 5:16-17)

            16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death , you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

            So the claim that any sin deserves to be punished by hell is a false claim. Hence justification by faith alone and the accompanied assurance of justification are both false.

            7) Justification by faith alone assumes one can know what is to be believed in the act of faith. Yet because the double imputation theory is made within the Protestant system of private interpretation, one can only know what to believe based upon the subjective opinion of each believers interpretation of a series of texts. Therefore Justification by faith alone is only ever a subjective act, and never has the assurance that faith is objective. But what is not objective is unstable, and lacks certainty. What lacks certainty, lacks assurance. Hence the assertion that faith alone theology provides assurance and the removal of guilt is false.

            Other problems with the double imputation theory –

            8) When the Father imputes Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, the Father also continues to see the sinner as a real sinner, for the Father knows everything perfectly. So the Father imputes righteousness, but knows the imputation does not make the sinner righteousness. By acting to impute righteousness, the Father thinks the imputation is of more value than the sins within the sinner. But the Father then must think what has more value is the fiction of imputation of righteousness, over the reality of sin within the sinner. The Father must then think fiction is of more value than the real. But the Father is the objective author of reality, so the Father thinks it is objective to place more value in a fiction, than in a reality. So fiction is more objective than the reality of sin.

            9) Calvinism teaches that every act is tainted with sin, for every act is from a sinful human nature. Yet faith that saves is acceptable by God, even though the motive for faith is to avoid going to hell. So the avoidance of going to hell is either not tainted with sin, or is tainted with sin. If not, then the motive of the avoidance of going to hell is a perfect act, contrary to Calvinism’s claim that all human acts are sinful. But if so, then the avoidance of going to hell is not a perfect act, but acceptable to a god, that otherwise does not accept an imperfect act. This too is contrary to Calvinism’s claim that all human acts are sinful and therefore not acceptable to God. Hence the convolute nature of the Calvinist claims infer the double imputation theory is false.

            10) Christ is said to be imputed sin for the elect at the cross. Yet Christ did not die for the non elect. So Christ is not imputed the sins of the non elect at the cross. So at the cross Christ was perfect God and perfect man for the non elect, but perfect God and perfect man, imputed with the sins of the elect by the Father. Hence the Father sees the Son on the cross more real for the non elect, than He does when He imputes sin to Christ for the elect. The double vision of the Father towards Christ at the cross means the Father values the fictional Christ on the cross more than He does the real Christ on the same cross. The double imputation theory requires that the Father make false judgements and knowingly approve of false judgements about His son. Hence the theory is false.

            Furthermore, because the Father sees the fictional Christ on the cross better than the real Christ, the real Christ has died for no reason, and only the fictional Christ with the imputed sin has died on the cross. The Father’s imputation of sin to Christ makes the cross a folly of the fictional Trinity of Calvinism.

            11) The Father imputes sin to Christ on the cross, and then sends Christ to hell of the damned for about three days, where Christ suffers the fires of Hell and the torments of the devil. So Christ is punished on the cross and then punished in hell. Consequently because 1) Christ is the representative of humanity, no man need be sent to hell, and 2) no man can be sent to hell justly because Christ already suffered the punishment of hell for men as the head of mankind. Yet within the double imputation theory Christ is sent to hell for men to be sent to heaven and hell. So the theory requires the biblical truth of Christ’s headship of all men to be ignored and God’s justice to be perverted.

            12) Christ is perfectly obedient under the law. Yet Christ is not required to die on the cross under the law, for He was falsely accused of the sin of blasphemy and was subsequently sent to the cross. If Christ was perfectly obedient under the law He would have used His divine power to avoid the cross to perfectly vindicate His claims concerning His divinity in response to the false claims of blasphemy. As Christ was sent to the cross under the false claim of blasphemy, Christ did not perfectly fulfil the law on the cross. Therefore the double imputation theory’s claim that Christ perfect obedience, which includes the claim that Christ suffering on the cross was obedient to the law is false.

            13) There is no biblical support for the cross as a strict payment for sin as required within the double imputation theory. There are statements that use words such as ransom, and propitiation, which are based upon the OT system of animal sacrifice, but none of these words convey the meaning required of the theory. Hence the theory has no biblical support for its understanding of Christ on the cross as a penal substitute.

            14) Faith alone justifies the sinner, yet there is no need for faith within the double imputation theory. For faith is said to be the instrument of justification, but God can impute justification to any sinner with or without faith. For the imputation of righteousness comes from God’s sovereign will as the ultimate source of men’s justification. So faith is only required because God has decreed it to be so, but could also decree that faith need not be required. Hence the double imputation theory falls within the category of the nominalist and positivist error concerning Gods decrees over men, which are merely from divine will and could change as the divine will changes. According to positivism, all law is from will and can change. Therefore the Ten Commandments can change and at some time, killing and theft may be morally licit acts from God’s will. As positivism is false, the double imputation theory is false.

            15) According to the double imputation theory, men are both predestined to heaven and hell. Yet there is no evidence for predestination of the damned within the bible. So the double imputation theory requires a fictional predestination of the damned by an invented God.

            16) According to the double imputation theory, men do not have free will and God predestines all events. So men in the fallen state are not responsible for their sins as the sins a committed when men are not free. And because God predestines all events, God becomes the author of sin. Therefore the double imputation theory equates the biblical devil with the god of Calvinism as the author of sin. So the Calvinist god gets the same glory as the devil as the author of sin. Such is false, so the theory is also false.

            17) According to the double imputation theory, hope is exclude for all men. For the non-elect are damned because God predestined them to hell, so the non-elect have no hope of heaven. And the elect are predestined to heaven, so there is no chance that the elect will not be glorified. Hence the elect need not have hope of heaven, which is already guaranteed when the sinner believes. Yet hope is taught in the bible, so the double imputation theory is false.

            18) God created for His own glory. The double imputation theory requires that God predestine some men to hell for His own glory. But predestination to damnation infers God orders all events in the non-elect for their own perdition. Hence the God of glory attains glory through God alone acting to create and order to the disorder of men’s perdition. Yet the biblical model says God does not want men to be damned but to repent and come to salvation. So the double imputation theory is contrary to revelation and therefore false.

            JM

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Ah, nice strawman you've constructed there. When confronted with many alternate doctrines within Protestantism, Protestants can respond in various ways. Some doctrines are not considered a matter of salvation, so there is freedom to disagree. They can also point to disagreements within Catholicism (e.g., preterism and futurism were both developed by Catholics, Molinism and double predestination were both developed by Catholics, etc.). Alternatively, they can simply declare that other denominations got it wrong - there is no concern within Protestantism that it needs to be monolithic.
              Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight you.

              Also your statement about Catohlicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to beleive, or not as he choses. But when the Magesterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catohlic must follow from authority.

              JM
              Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-16-2016, 06:00 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight you.

                JM
                Try not to confuse your assertions with fact. Catholicism isn't monolithic either. How many Catholics go in for geocentrism these days?
                Also your statement about Catohlicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to beleive, or not as he choses. But when the Magesterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catohlic must follow from authority.
                ETA: And the Protestant will say that he needs no Magisterium, because he's free to decide for himself.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight you.

                  JM
                  Try not to confuse your assertions with fact.
                  My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.


                  Catholicism isn't monolithic either. How many Catholics go in for geocentrism these days?
                  Geostatism is taught by the Magisterium, and found in the OT and the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers. Can geostatism be known as part of the deposit of faith? Yes. Should it be believed? Yes. Can Catholics come to know this truth? Yes. Do Catholics come to know this truth? Yes. Are there many Catholics ignorant of this truth, or have a false understanding of this truth? Yes. The subjective judgments of Catholics does nothing to remove the objective means by which the truth of geostatism can be known.

                  What of Protestants? No. They routinely ignore this truth in scripture, the fathers and do not have a magisterium to ratify the other two sources. They do have in part an objective means to make a judgment about the truth of geostatism, but more often than not fail to act correctly on that truth, just as they do with many other truths. Consequently Protestantism is quasi humanist and eclectic.

                  Also your statement about Catholicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to believe, or not as he chooses. But when the Magesterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catholic must follow from authority.

                  ETA: And the Protestant will say that he needs no Magisterium, because he's free to decide for himself.
                  Which means the Protestant takes the place of the Magisterium and becomes a law unto himself. Hence collectively Protestantism devolves from the apparent certitude of the individual to the real agnosticism of the collective. Hence the apparent certitude is really a real agnosticism, regardless of the subjective opinion of any individual Protestant concerning his position on any particular doctrine.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Hence Protestantism is fundamentally disposed to being agnostic. Your straw man allegation has come back to bight bite you.
                    What was I thinking?

                    Also your statement about Catholicism is a red herring because Catholicism has a Magisterium to resolve doctrinal matters and Protestantism does not. If a doctrine is not resolved, then the Catholic is free to believe, or not as he chooses. But when the Magisterium makes a decision on matters of faith the Catholic must follow from authority.

                    JM
                    Other corrections as well. Bad morning.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.
                      Well, alrighty then. I can see there's little use in continuing this.

                      Ta.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        Well, alrighty then. I can see there's little use in continuing this.

                        Ta.
                        As you please. Protestantism does attain to some revealed truth, but the principle of private interpretation which is fundamentally flawed when applied within Protestantism, will inevitably lead to agnosticism. Private interpretation has the following problems -

                        1) The principle of private interpretation assumes the text as a given. Yet the text in the OT was not a given, but was in a state of progressive revelation made within the Patriarchal community and then the covenant community of Israel. Both communities lived their faith within structures given by God and within traditions that reinforced and affirmed the understanding of the texts considered to be revealed. For example, the priests would teach the scriptures and thereby have authority to apply the law to the community. The Chair of Moses was also used to teach and bind the faithful.

                        2) The principle of private interpretation assumes revelation is contained within the NT. Yet, the NT text states many times that the apostles gave the gospel as an oral tradition through preaching. That gospel dominated the early church as the community in which revelation was understood. Revelation within the early church was understood and received as an oral gospel, which assumed certain doctrines and practices not all together included in the scriptures. By ignoring the early church practice, the principle of private interpretation applied within Protestantism without any evidence from history or the text, assumes such practice has ceased. The assumption is false, making the application of the principle of private interpretation within Protestantism also false.

                        3) The principle of private interpretation assumes sola scriptura as an implied principle. As sola scriptura is false, then the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

                        4) The principle of private interpretation assumes doctrines to be believed are derived from a text. Yet there is no evidence within the text that such a method is ever used in the OT or NT Church. Hence the principle of private interpretation assumes a method to discover Christian doctrine that is foreign to the scriptures themselves. Hence, the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

                        5) The principle of private interpretation assumes methods of exegesis that are not contained within the text. Such methods in the modern age are many and diverse which arrive at different conclusions concerning what the text means. As the principle of private interpretation assumes a valid method, which is not given in the scriptures, any valid method must be derived independent of any directive given in the text. The lack of scriptural mandate for a method mitigates against the use of any method along with the principle of private interpretation. Hence, the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

                        6) The principle of private interpretation assumes both an easy access to the text, and literacy which is only available in the modern age. Hence the principle of private interpretation is unhistorical when compared to the availability of the text to the faithful and the ability of the faithful to read the text. The historical application of the text is more aligned with the Church teaching the scriptures and the fullness of the gospel along with tradition, rather than individual exegetes being formed at university to then produce multiple competing doctrines from the same text.

                        7) The principle of private interpretation assumes too much concerning the intent of the Holy Spirit as the author of the text. It assumes the Holy Spirit wrote the text primarily as the means by which Christian doctrine is to be determined. Yet there is no evidence within the text that the Holy Spirit intended this for the text. Hence, the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

                        8) The principle of private interpretation assumes too much concerning the competence in any Church age of exegetes to correctly interpret the text. As Church history moves on, history reveals the principles of exegesis once accepted are then questioned and either improved upon, or abandoned as problems arise. Such problems become apparent over long time periods, which indicate that the principle of private interpretation opens Christians in any generation to the vagaries of schools of thought on exegetical method, which can be influenced by false philosophies of the schools. Historical evidence against the apllication of private interpretation mitigates against its application within Protestantism.

                        9) The principle of private interpretation assumes too much authority for exegetes and a misplaced authority for scripture. The text does not grant exegetes authority, or theologians authority. Nor does the text grant authority to the text apart from the Church as the covenant community with the powers to speak for God. Hence the principle of private interpretation assumes 1) a false authority for exegetes and theologians and 2) a false lack of authority for the Church.

                        10) The principle of private interpretation assumes too little authority within the church. For by private interpretation, the principle assumes there is no other corrective, or normative guide within the church to direct a Christian towards Christian doctrinal truth. The principle of private interpretation therefore falsely assumes no other equivalent or greater authority when there is abundant support within the text and church history that speaks of such authority within the church. In short, the principle of private interpretation seeks to apply the guidance of the Holy Spirit to individuals, but rejects that guidance to the Church proper to then speak prophetically to define dogmas of the faith.

                        11) The principle of private interpretation inevitably concludes to diversity of Christian doctrine and denominationalism. Yet denominationalism is not found in the NT scriptures. Hence the principle of private interpretation is false according to the principle contradicting scripture in practice.

                        12) The principle of private interpretation inevitably concludes to diversity of Christian doctrine and consequently to both fundamentalism and liberal indifferentism concerning Christian doctrine. Both are foreign to the text, and therefore the principle of private interpretation contradicts the scriptures in practice.

                        13) The principle of private interpretation is applied along with the principle that says unclear texts can be better understood by the clearer texts. Yet there is no guarantee that unclear texts can be better understood through clearer texts. In fact the application of clearer texts to unclear texts may only act to truncate and remove ambiguities deliberately placed by the Holy Spirit in unclear texts for His own reasons. The Holy Spirit is Lord of all, and therefore Lord of ambiguity, given for men’s salvation.

                        14) The principle of private interpretation has historically been behind many debates between Protestants on a multitude of doctrines. Yet there is no evidence within the text that debates are the means God has given the church to decide upon Christian doctrine. Hence the principle of private interpretation concludes to a false practice not taught in the scriptures.

                        For these any many other reasons, the principle of private interpretation is both helpful to understand the text, but when misapplied as we see it in Protestantism, is gravely deficient.

                        JM
                        Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-16-2016, 10:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This series of postings assumes that we need a single, guaranteed answer to questions posed by Christian theologians. It’s obvious that the only way to get that is to have a single person, or a single body with a defined voting process.

                          However just because this process produces a single answer doesn’t guarantee that it’s accurate. Nor even that it’s answering the right questions. (Remember that formulating questions the wrong way can produce very misleading results.)

                          Maybe it’s my scientific background, but I prefer to start with the data. When we look at the way God revealed himself, it’s by no means clear that his goal was to produce unambiguous answers to questions of the kind that theologians pose. Indeed the revelations in the OT and in Jesus’ teachings seem aimed at quite different goals, starting with personal transformation.

                          I’d rather start with the way God chose to interact with us and then ask what it leads us to, not just in terms of doctrine, but communal and personal reactions.

                          This is not just a problem with JohnMartin's version of Catholicism, but also with a lot of conservative Christianity.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                            This series of postings assumes that we need a single, guaranteed answer to questions posed by Christian theologians. It’s obvious that the only way to get that is to have a single person, or a single body with a defined voting process.
                            False. The recent posts have been aimed at finding problems with the double imputation theory of the Reformation, and problems with the Westminster confession.

                            However just because this process produces a single answer doesn’t guarantee that it’s accurate. Nor even that it’s answering the right questions. (Remember that formulating questions the wrong way can produce very misleading results.)
                            This is a Protestant problem. There are only theologians, exegetes and ministers within Protestantism. The theologians and exegetes have no authority and the ministers are not sacramentally ordained, so they too have very little authority. Any doctrine derived from these three ministries is only the opinions of those men who hold to those positions within a denomination. Their opinions are not binding on anyone.

                            Maybe it’s my scientific background, but I prefer to start with the data. When we look at the way God revealed himself, it’s by no means clear that his goal was to produce unambiguous answers to questions of the kind that theologians pose. Indeed the revelations in the OT and in Jesus’ teachings seem aimed at quite different goals, starting with personal transformation.
                            If you look at the data in the OT, there were institutions within Israel to teach doctrine and practice. Similarly, in the NT, the Church has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:17-19, 18:18). The so called data points to an authoritative Church with powers from God to teach, govern and sanctify the Church. There is no indication within the NT or OT text that a believer is to approach the text and work it all out for himself, or work it all out within a denomination. Quite the contrary, the texts clearly show a Church with the authority from the apostles to make doctrinal and practical decisions, such as at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

                            I’d rather start with the way God chose to interact with us and then ask what it leads us to, not just in terms of doctrine, but communal and personal reactions.
                            Good point. Start with the Church with the authority to bind and loose, which can trace itself back to the apostles.

                            This is not just a problem with JohnMartin's version of Catholicism, but also with a lot of conservative Christianity.
                            Your Protestant Christianity only proves my point that Protestantism has the wrong understanding of the authority and role of the scriptures and its insistence in ignoring the authority God gave the church. Your approach only leads to doctrinal confusion, as a product of your unscriptural and unhistorical method. Protestantism leads to doctrinal anarchy and the modern, apostate secular states we see in the West.

                            You have simply assumed the data is found in a text and ignored the history of Christian belief. Its as though you think you can work it all out yourself, even though Church histroy shows doctrinal wars were and continue to be fought. You don't stand a chance.

                            JM
                            Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-17-2016, 11:05 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.
                              Thanks. That's much nicer than my current signature.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                Do Catholics come to know this truth [geocentrism]? Yes. Are there many Catholics ignorant of this truth, or have a false understanding of this truth? Yes.
                                So the actual answer to the first question is: Do Catholics come to know this truth? No, they don't.

                                If they did there wouldn't be so many - 90+%? - who remain 'ignorant' of it.

                                Yet another JM idea shot down immediately by JM himself.
                                Last edited by Roy; 11-18-2016, 11:37 AM.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X