[responsivevoice_button]

I am having an exchange with a Roman Catholic about the Church and stuff. I’m bringing it here to have a better format:

TLM fan:

1. I think we agree on that But the question is how do you know the truth today. Is objective truth found in the Church that Jesus Christ founded (which is the Catholic Church) or is there in one of the hundreds (or perhaps thousands) protestant sects? Your answers solves nothing

TheSire:

The Church that follows the Words of God has the truth. The Bible presents the Early church particularly well because it started them. It doesn’t have a “Universal Church” but rather churches:

This model of church that I present is biblical. It is a faith/Spirit model rather than an Universal Bishop model. Take Paul’s remnant theology in Rom. 9. The people of God are where the promises of God is rather than certain roles.

TLM fan:

2. Those “explanation” dig you in a deeper hole. One that makes Christianity incoherent. Because if there was 1 visible, tangible Church in early Christianity (i.e., the Catholic Church), how come that was not the pillar of Truth? Pls help me understand that

TheSire:

First, he is responding to my collection of resources in regards to his prooftexting:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/06/10/the-pillar-of-truth/

Secondly, yeah, if you assume Catholicism, then you can say that this is about Roman supremacy. But that isn’t compelling given the fact that we know that it is referring to the church at Ephesus. But nobody takes that as proof of the Ephesian papacy. So, you have the obligation to prove that these refer to your church.

TLM fan:

3. Can you explain what is my “historical mistake”? On this one I hope you have read throughly Alister McGrath’s book on the history of the doctrine of justification because I have and is my favorite topic. I’ll be eagerly waiting for your answer

TheSire:

I was stating that the Roman Catholic view has arisen from historical mistakes. Their understanding of justification is derivative of the Latin Vulgate and Augustine’s works. This is literally stated by McGrath:

Yet although the story of the doctrine of justification really begins in the Middle Ages, the foundations for this development were laid much earlier. Our account opens by documenting the emergence of the concept of justification, and identifying the foundational resources that would be deployed during the great period of medieval synthesis. A close reading of the medieval discussions of justification leaves no doubt as to the two primary sources on which they drew: the Vulgate translation of the Bible, and the works of Augustine of Hippo.

Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Third Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ©2005)(Page 5)

It is therefore clear that, under the influence of the Hebrew original, the Septuagintal verb dikaioun came to assume a meaning quite distinct from its secular Greek origins. Furthermore, such a meaning must have become widespread and accepted within Greek-speaking Judaism – otherwise, the LXX would have been incomprehensible at points. It is apparent that this inherent difficulty reflects the quite different semantic fields of the sdq and dik words. A difficulty of a quite different nature arose in the translation of terms such as hasdiq or dikaioun into Latin. The verb iustificare (‘to justify’), employed for this purpose, was post-classical, and thus required interpretation. The general tendency among Latin-speaking theologians was to follow Augustine of Hippo (see 1.4) in interpreting iustificare (‘to justify’) as iustum facere (‘to make righteous’). Augustine’s etymological speculations have been the object of derision for some considerable time – for example, his impossible derivation of the name Mercurius from medius currens. 58 His explanation of the origins of the term iustificare is, however, quite plausible, for it involves the acceptable assumption that -ficare is the unstressed form of facere. While this may be an acceptable interpretation of iustificare considered in isolation, it is not an acceptable interpretation of the verb considered as the Latin equivalent of dikaioun.

(ibid Page 20).

We have already noted that there is a close semantic connection between terms such as ‘justification’ (dikaiosis) and ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosyne) in Paul’s thought. The idea of the revelation of the righteousness of God is obviously of major importance to Christian reflection on the grounds and means of salvation. It is therefore entirely to be expected that there has been an extensive and complex history of interpretation of this term within the western Christian tradition. Augustine of Hippo argued that ‘the righteousness of God’ referred, not to the personal righteousness of God (in other words, the righteousness by which God is himself righteous), but to the righteousness which he bestows upon sinners, in order to justify them (in other words, the righteousness which comes from God). This interpretation of the phrase seems to have dominated the western theological tradition until the fourteenth century, when writers such as Gabriel Biel began to reinterpret it in terms of ‘the righteousness by which God is himself righteous’ – an interpretation which led to Luther’s sustained engagement with the issue around 1515.

(ibid 25-26)

You’ll probably be referring to his statements about the fact that McGrath states that Luther’s view of sola fide was a theological novum. But protestants have discussed that statement already. John Bugay stated:

The other issues are one that understands the implication of McGrath would have to conclude that the Catholic understanding of justification is a modern novelty as well.

TLM fan:

Fyi, there is only one Catholicism, and you can find its beliefs in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I am sure haven’t read it because you will find how Catholicism has kept the same beliefs as the early Church that you have abandoned with your novelties

Liberal roman catholics are irrelevant to the discussion. what is relevant is what the Church has established dogmatically. If you find any Catholic dogma that contradicts scripture I will become a protestant right away. Here you have a chance to turn me into a Protestant

TheSire:

I mean if you think the Catholic Cathechism is anything but spooftexting then you haven’t read it. Let’s take a modern and clear change from what was true to a false idea:

The catechism suffers from the changing whims of the current adminstation. This isn’t the only issue because it also suffers from spooftexting:

492 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137 [Cf. Eph 1:3-4]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm

This is a diffcult thing to swallow given what Eph. 1:3-4 actually states:

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

Would you care to defend the interpretation of your church? Do you honestly think this is teaching that Mary is unique?

For a contradiction in dogma I would recommend you look at the change from exclusivism to inclusivism:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/09/09/clashing-with-catholicism/