Response to FightingVatican (part 6) - On Sola Scriptura and the unity of the Church

Concerning Sola Scriptura, i ask you if you think Contraception is good or bad. In whatever you say, I hope all who believe in Sola Scriptoria believe the same as well. Should we be allowed or not? I pray you say no, not just because no where in the New Testament will you find a verse containing to it, just because of how murderous and selfish it is. But who is to have authority? Ourselves? Truly if I interpret something one way and you the other, we have just created two Gods. You said that we must find out how the original writers intended, so you are trying to create unity, and the only hope if for that the unity is to be one, the only Church that claim to be ONE, the same faith in America as the same faith in Africa, is the Catholic Church.

Let me begin by first noting your fallacious thinking about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a statement that says, “all believers will have the exact same views about the same things.” Your inference in your question is that Sola Scriptura is a statement about the PERSON who believes in it. This is completely missing the mark. Rather, Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature and sufficiency of Scripture. It is a statement that basically says that God’s word, as the very word of God, is the ultimate authority in the Church (notice, I didn’t say the only authority, only the authority over all others, ultimate); It is a statement about God’s word sufficiently containing all that one needs to know to be saved. Hence, if it is not required in the Bible FOR SALVATION, it is not necessary FOR SALVATION.
I have to emphasize “for salvation” because there are things that are “not necessary for salvation.” For instance, nowhere in the Bible does it require that I have certainly beliefs about certain moral topics or political views in order to be considered a Christian or justified before God. The Bible does not require, for instance, a particular view of contraception in order to be saved. Rather, the Bible clearly says that “if we believe with our hearts, and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, you will be saved.” Acts 16:31 “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…”. This is why Protestant argue that “faith alone” is the sole instrument of justification apart from works. It is Faith alone that the Bible requires in order to be justified.
Now, in order to be sanctified, there are further requirements for sure. There we must seek to conform our wills to God’s. There we must certainly take our moral stands and align our thinking with God’s word. But our sanctification is a result of our justification. Our justification does not depend on our sanctification.
Let me bring Scripture back into this. Sanctification is a process. Not all Christians are at the same level of sanctification either morally or intellectually. Some Christians live out very moral lives, but cannot think like a consistent Christian for the life of them. These are usually very simple people who have not really sought out the implications of Christian doctrine in all of life. They keep their Christianity simple and that is perfectly fine for them. Then there are some Christians who are intellectually sanctified in that these have thought through in a very thorough manner the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These have diligently studied the Scriptures and can apply the Scriptures to their own circumstance. Many in these category are usually Christian professors and philosophers. Again, nothing wrong with this category. We know that the Church needs them. Now, there might be some Christians who are behind in their sanctification. Some Christians might not even think to see what the Scriptures teach about particular moral issues, such as contraception.
After all lets be honest. The Bible does not explicitly speak about contraceptions. Now, the one example that many Catholics refer to is when a certain fellow “emitted on the ground” and was struck down by God. I’ve heard this one several times. However, in the context, God was not angered by his “emitting on the ground.” Rather, God was angered that this fellow didn’t want to fulfill his brotherly duty and give an heir to his brother’s wife (see Genesis 38:1-10), hence this example is misapplied from the text. The other thing you have to consider is your reasoning. You say, that contraception is “murderous”. But, my friend, how can you kill something which is not living? I will say that abortion is certainly murderous, but how can it be murder when the games have not even joined to create life? If nothing has been conceived, how can one “kill” nothing? You also say it is “selfish”, but for who? What if both partners concur that they do not wish to conceive a child but still want to be joined together as a husband and wife are (this is in a marriage context, of course)? If you are going to be consistent, then you would have to say that the ONLY reason for sex is procreation. Sex at any other time that has willful knowledge of when conception is impossible would be murder. I don’t believe you are willing to go that far, but being consistent with your assertions you would have to be. What of nocturnal emissions in children? Are they now guilty of murder? Get the point? It just doesn’t hold water…
So, should a person who holds to Sola Scriptura necessarily have the same views on contraception? Not necessarily. Nor does Sola Scriptura require them to. Again, Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature and sufficiency of Scripture, not about the competency of the one interpreting Scripture. I myself have some different views with other fellow Christians. Some Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin. I do not. Some say smoking is a sin. I do not (not that I smoke). Some say that “stupid” is a bad word; I do not. Does that mean that they or I do not believe in Sola Scriptura? Hardly! It just means that we are different people. But where the word of God speaks and to what it speaks, SCRIPTURE ALONE speaks with infallible authority because it is the very Word of God. It is God speaking.
Hence, to ask the question you ask about Scriptures authority, the believer and contraceptions. You would first have to produce the explicit or implicit statements in Scripture condemning contraceptives or contraception in any way. Now, maybe I have missed those statements. I don’t claim exhaustive knowledge. I may only know what I have read and understood from Scripture. So ,if there is evidence for your view which can make a case against contraceptives for all Christians, then I certainly welcome it.
As per the unity that you require, you should understand that Rome does not meet that same standard. If I understand correctly, you believe that the Catholic Church professes a common faith, both doctrinally and morally. To a certain extent, this is true. I think all of the Roman Catholic Church is united generally in the belief of the primacy of the Pope, the Marian dogmas, the Eucharist and how to be saved. All of Rome professes common doctrine in word. However, when you get to the nitty-gritty that is to the lay people where Catholicism is really carried out in practice, we often find another story. And don’t get me wrong, this is in all Churches, even Protestant Churches. Rome has her members who profess to be Roman Catholic but yet believe in abortion (this is common in the RCC of the United States). Of course, Rome doesn’t excommunicate these members like professed Catholic John Kerry. Rome has her members within her fold who actually use contraceptives. Etc…my point is that theory and practice, doctrine and morals, don’t always match. I can also tell you that the Catholicism of the United States is carried out differently than the Catholicism in Mexico and South American countries, versus the Catholicism in Ireland versus the Catholicism in Rome itself, and I’m not just talking liturgically either. Each “form” has its own cultural relevance. I’m sure Catholics in Africa don’t worship like those in Mexico.
Now, my point is simply that the unity that you require for Protestants is not present in Roman Catholicism either. Even with Roman Catholicism there have been identified “denominations” such as the “sedavacanist” who do not believe that Rome has a valid Pope. There are “charismatic” Catholics; “Liberal” Catholics; “Moderate” Catholics; “Conservative” Catholics; Catholics who are opposed to the documents of Vatican II; Catholics who believe Vatican II was infallible; Catholic who do not believe Vatican II was infallible, etc…the list could go on and on but I think I’ve made the point.

Response to Fighting Vatican (part 5) - On the sacrifice of the Mass

And per sacrifice, we as Catholics do not re-sacrifice Jesus, this is a common misconception outside the Church. We are re-presenting the Sacrifice when Jesus says do this in remembrance of me. You look at old Tradition, old Jewish Customs of circumcision and their own sacrifice, and how Catholics do things today, it is all quite similar.read Hebrews 10:1

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves."

What is a shadow? It is a outline that must contain the substance. The old tradtions of the past are shown in new light in the New Conveant. I saw on your website that you had a priest tell you that you had alot of knowlege of the Catholic Church, but the main doctrine of our faith and you do not understand? Please read the Catechism, if you wish to define our beliefs. Jesus is our ultimate high priest, there is no doubt of that, but It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.
Allow me to start off by quoting from the Council of Trent regarding the sacrifice of the Mass:

“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.” (Session 22, chap. 2)

Likewise, Canon I declares:

“If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

The language of the infallible Council of Trent is such that the Mass is really a “sacrifice” of the “one and the same” Christ. Were it merely a “representation”, I don’t think I would have problem with that in the sense that the supper “signifies” (at the very least) the death of the Christ. However, the meaning of Trent is clearly that the Mass is really and truly a sacrifice of the same Jesus Christ who once died on the “altar of the cross.” The difference between the two is that while the cross was a “bloody sacrifice” the Mass is an “unbloody sacrifice”. Both are claimed to be equally propitiatory and even the “one and the same” victim is offered in this “real and true sacrifice”.
Now, the questions are as follows: How can the sacrifice be one and the same, or a re-presentation, when the significant difference of the manner is different? Also, how does propitiation for sins take place through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass when the New Testament is explicit in saying, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:22)?
As per Hebrews 10, I believe the teaching of Hebrews 10:1-4 is quite clear that the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away the sins of the people. In the covenant, that was not its function. The function of the OT sacrifices were to direct the peoples faith to one who would come and be the sacrifice that God would truly be pleased with (see Isaiah 53). What was the function of those OT sacrifices? Verse 3 reveals it clearly: “But in these sacrifice (the ones that are continually offered) there is a reminder (Gr. Anamnesis) OF SIN every year.” Notice the word “reminder”. It is the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said “Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of Me.”
Here we see the contrast between the sacrifices of the OT and the sacrifice (singular) of the NT. In the OT, sacrifices were repeated year after year to remind the peoples of their sins. Again, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). These sacrifices were not intended to do such. In the Old Covenant, they were signs pointing to the sacrifice to come, to the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the real sacrifice to which all the other sacrifices pointed to. Those sacrifices were but shadows –without substance – of the real propitiation for our sins.
That this is the true understanding is seen from the proceeding verses in which we read, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired…” That is, the sacrifices of animals were not what God really wanted. God really wanted the peoples’ faith to be in the coming sacrifice, the one who would crush the head of the serpent. Hence, the prophets would often ridicule Israel for their zealous sacrifices that had missed the whole point of what they signified. As Augustine said in “On Christian Doctrine” Book 3, chap. 8, they were in bondage to the sign and had missed the thing signified in the sign. God could often tell the people that He didn’t want their sacrifices but a “broken spirit” and a “contrite heart”…the reminders of sin. God ultimately wanted their faith (Hab. 2:4). Hebrews continues, “…but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offering and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure…” Again, God is not propitiated or pleased by the sacrifices of the animals. Rather, He is well pleased in His Son and His work that was truly propitiatory.
In regards to the Priesthood, I would quote I Peter 2:5 and 2:9 to show that we all are priests to God. All believers share in the NT priesthood in that we do not need intermediaries to take our sacrifices to God anymore. Now Jesus is the great High Priest, as you correctly assert. But beyond that, there are no other intermediaries to get to God. Also, the word for elders (GR. Presbuteros) is NOT the same Greek word for priest ( GR. hierus) nor are they used interchangeably. Rather the word that is translated as overseer or bishop is used synonymously with “elder” (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). This evidence in the Scriptures is what has lead me to believe that the office of elder and overseer/bishop are one and the same, which is why I also believe in a Presbyterian form of Church government.

Response to FightingVatican (part 4) - The Gates of Hell shall not prevail...

"The gates of hades shall not prevail".... What does that mean then? If the Church is a community of believers, then the gates of hell shall not prevail against what? The people? Even [now] we see people believe and then fall away?... But for the gates not to prevail against the "foundation of truth", must mean that this foundation, the pillar, which is a starting point, can not be faltered. The Pillar will not fall. The people in the church can, but not the Church itself.

Let me start off by saying that I am very thankful for your interaction and I want you to know that I am not ignoring your other responses, I just want to take the time to answer all of these other concerns first. Hopefully, I will get to the other responses, especially the covenants, very soon. For now, allow me to continue responding to your original letter.
“The gates of Hades shall not prevail…” In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Again, as I have stated before, the Church is a body of believers in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God. The Church is not an institution. I would certainly challenge anybody to find in Scripture where the Church is defined as or even described as an institution that can exist apart from believers. Instead, as I pointed out, the Church is the sum total of the elect of God. The Church are those people for whom Christ died (see Eph. 5:25). Paul says to the Church in Corinth “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (I Cor. 12:27). The Church is the ONE BODY of ALL BELIEVERS. It is not a building located in one place. It is not even many buildings! It is the people! I Corinthians 3:16 even reminds us that we are “God’s temple”. Likewise Peter says, “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:4-5). We are the stones that make up the Church – the spiritual house – that will be the dwelling of God with His people. When Christ says “I will build my Church…” We are the material God is using. It is people.
Now, when Christ says “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” by this I understand Jesus promising PERPETUAL EXISTENCE to the Church. That is, God’s elect will have a continual existence. To the saints(those who died in faith, not in the Catholic sense of Saint), they are given experiencing life eternal. To the faithful here on earth, they too experience eternal life (John 17:3) but also they enjoy existence. In that I mean, God’s Church – no matter how assaulted by the world, sin and Satan – it will not ever be destroyed. Yes, there may be times when it seems like the Church is not doing its job, but just like God revealed to Elijah, He has His elect who have not succumbed to the world (see I Kings 19:9-18;Romans 11:3-5).
And so it has been. Reading early Church history and seeing the intensive persecutions against Christianity both physically and intellectually, it is a true marvel and miracle that Christianity even exists today! When we think of the early Jewish persecutions headed by, at that time, Saul of Tarsus. Think of the Roman persecutions. Think of the persecutions by the Arians. Think of the Arian ascendancy even to the Papacy in the 4th century from which our great hero of Trinitarian orthodoxy, Athanasius, had a phrase coined for him: Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world. Think about the invading Germanic tribes who eventually sacked Rome and their Arian tendencies. Then came the Muslims and their attacks on Christianity. We can also think of the Gnostics who intellectually tried to turn Christianity into something entirely different and deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Think of the many early and even later Christological heresies. There is so much to name. That the Church still exists today with all its true apostolic teachings is really miracles of God that I attribute to God keeping His promise to not let the “gates of hell prevail” against the Church.
But what of those who have fallen out of the fellowship of the Church? Again, I appeal to the Scriptures here particularly the apostle John. In his first epistle he writes, “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (I John 2:18-19). Basically John is saying, that those who ended up leaving (apostasizing) from the faith, they left because they were not truly “of us”. That is, they were not truly born again (see I John 2:15-16; 3:6-8, et. al.) and hence “fell away.” They were “false believers” if you will. Jesus also mentions those kinds of believers. He mentions that in the Church , there will be the “wheat”(believers) mixed with the “tares” or “weeds” (unbelievers,false believers) until the end (Matt. 13:24-30).
Hence, the Church, since it is only and every comprised of believers can never cease to exist so long as God continues to keep His promises. Being that God is a faithful God, He most certainly has and will continue to keep His promise. It is true also, though, that believers may falter, even as David, a man after God’s own heart did, but they will never fully and finally fall away. For the Scriptures also promise that “He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). So, while individual members of the Church may falter at times – and we can all say that are not always the best examples of Christianity sometimes for we all sin (I John 1:8) – yet as a WHOLE – and that really is the key – the gates of hell shall not prevail.
I hope that answers your question about what I believe. In the end, the Church is an organic whole composed of many individual believers each having their part as “living stones” in the building of God. Hence, the Church not cease to exist or crumble because of the lapse of one believer, or a group of believers, or with a particular expression of Christianity. I mean lets face it, each particular Christian denomination probably has some history that it might not be proud of. In common, we can say that Church history includes the Crusades as a means of spreading the Gospel. The Church killed Copernicus for his “revolutionary” theory of heliocentricity which we have come to know is true now. That is a blunder that all Christians should not be proud of. It is also true that the Church used to burn heretics, something that we today would be ashamed of. Catholics persecuted Protestants. One can hardly forget the St. Bartholomew’s day Massacre in which Protestants were viciously murdered in a plot by the Roman Catholic clergy and government. Protestants persecuted Catholics taking land from them, etc… during the Reformation. Catholic and Protestants alike participated in slavery and slave trading. The Papacy refused to condemn Hitler’s actions against the Jews. Roman Catholic priest have been found to sexually molest children. So called “Protestant” Televangelist are a continual embarrassment not only in the Church but to the world. I could certainly go on about both of respective groups’ blunders in history. But the existence of the Church is not conditioned upon the performance of its individual or even group members but upon the promise of God and of Christ : “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Response to Fighting Vatican (part 3) - On the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ

Also, I am quite sure no where in the Bible is defined that Jesus was fully man and fully God as the same being. We know he was God and Human, but I quite sure (correct me) does the Bible explicitly say in the same being...Maybe God and human in one body, just two people, but this was one the early arguments of the Church, weather or not Jesus was truly 1 being! This was defined i believe in the 2nd or 3rd century that indeed Jesus was fully man and fully God in the same being, not two separate people.

I will agree that the Bible does not have written the explicit formula found in the Nicene Creed or even the Creed of Chalcedon. However, the teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon are completely contained within the Scriptures. We know that Jesus was human because of the Incarnation. After all, what would it mean for God to become incarnate, if not to take on a human nature? I would certainly beg to differ that the Scriptures do not say that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man! I think Athanasius, who stood up to the Arian heresy in the 4th century would also differ with you. Athanasius’ very arguments were taken from the exegesis of Scripture against the Arians.
Take the prologue to the Gospel of John for instance (John 1:1-18). Lets see if we can’t see that Jesus Christ, the one person, is not fully God and fully man.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Now, the verb form of the verb “to be” is an imperfect tense and is often translated as “was”. The sense that we should understand is that the Word of God was already in existence before the beginning. Hence, the Logos is eternal and its existence preceded “the beginning”. I have a paper exegeting John 1:1 with special regards to refuting the JW’s understanding of the text that you are welcomed to on my website (here is the link). In short, the Logos is eternal with God the Father. Jesus Christ shares in the eternal nature with God, thus qualifying Him as fully human. For only God alone is eternal and there is only one God. Hence, we conclude the Logos of God, identified as Jesus Christ, shares in the one eternal nature that is God. Fully God, no questions asked. This teaching of the Deity of Christ also comes out in such passages as Phillippians 2:5-1 as well as Colossians 1:17. There are many other Scriptures that may bring this out including Hebrews 1:8-12. I would recommend picking up any sound Reformed Theological work on the Deity of Christ which may clearly show that the fully deity of Jesus Christ is a Biblical doctrine.

“He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it.”
Again, we see the eternal nature of the Logos and even His role in creation, again showing that Christ was not created but rather was a medium for creation and nothing was created without His agency.

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

More is seen here of the high Christology presented in the Bible. We see that John the Baptist fulfills the role of the “messenger” pointing to the Christ but not being the Christ himself. Jesus is the “true light” and the world does not perceive him. Rather, only those granted with the gift of faith through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit are alone able to see Jesus Christ as God’s anointed. Now we get to it…

“And the word became flesh…”

After all the high and divine things that have been said about the Word of God, how unworthy are we as creatures to be in the presence of such a being who has had eternal audience with God the Father! How unworthy of our nature is this being! This “light of the world” this “word of God” this “true light”….and the Scriptures declare, “the word became FLESH.” Now, surely there can be no question as to what the Scripture is saying here. Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father, took on for himself human nature, summed up here as “flesh”. Other passages of Scripture teach the same thing. As mentioned before, Philippians 2:5-11 clearly teaches that Jesus, who was God in nature, took on human nature. We read, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” There is no question that the full humanity of Jesus Christ is affirmed in Scripture LONG before Nicea and Chalcedon. John’s prologue finishes:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.”

I think it is important to note that Roman Catholics have traditionally claimed that the doctrines that get defined in the Church were always part of the Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith) well before they are officially pronounced. I would certainly not have a problem with that in the sense that I believe God’s truths do not become truth when they are defined but have always been truth that was revealed to us. And we know that God says that His word is truth (John 17:17). Thus, it seems rather odd that you would assert that it took the Council of Nicea (even Chalcedon) to define Christ as one person with two nature, and of one and equal substance with the Father. As I understand it, those beliefs have always been part of the Church. I think even a cursory reading of the First Epistle of John will show that John was combating the belief that Christ was not a man. Hence, he would say that anybody who denies the incarnation – that Christ was really a man, fully man – was “antichrist” (see I John 4:1-4).
Hence, and very clearly, the teachings of the fully deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ is clearly contained within the pages of Holy Scripture. I myself have not read the Trinitarian works of Athanasius but I have read from numerous works on Church history, including Phillip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” (8 volumes!) that Athanasius adamantly stood on Scripture and appealed to its pages to make his arguments against the Arians.
Thus, while Scripture may not use the language that was thrown around in Nicea (homoiousios and homoousios), the meanings behind these words to describe the nature of Christ are clearly contained within the Scritpures. As B.B. Warfield once said, (paraphrase), “If we search for particular words in Scripture regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, we will search in vain…However, we should know that the sense of Scripture is still Scripture.” By that Warfield meant that the meaning of Scripture is equal to the words of Scripture. With this I would agree. So while particular theological phrase – which are human constructs for understanding the Scriptures and their meaning – are absent, the meanings are not and I would rather cling to the truth of Scripture than quibble over words.

Response to Fighting Vatican Part 2

Yes in 2 Tim 3 all Scripture is good for correction and inspired, but it does not say only Scripture. It is not the foundation of truth. When you read "foundation", what do you get from that? The Church must hold the Truth together, its is starting point and if the Church goes down, just like a foundation of a house, the house goes down with it.

Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work.” We note from this text that ONLY Scripture is God-breathed (Gr. Theopneustos). Nothing else in all of Scripture is referred to as God-breathed (theopneustos). In fact, some Biblical scholars believe that this is the first instance of the word “theopneustos” in ancient Greek literature (See B.B.Warfield’s “the Inspiration of Scripture”). Now, you are correct in saying that “it does not say only Scripture.” However, I would also be correct in saying “it doesn’t saying anything else is either.” Your rebuttal there is actually an “argument from silence” but as logicians and scholars have noted that is exactly what the argument proves: silence! I could use that type of argument with any text of Scripture if I so choose. I could say, “uh, the Bible doesn’t say I can’t use and sell drugs.” In fact, there are quite a few things that the Bible doesn’t say explicitly (like you state later in your letter, the exact formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, though the substance of the doctrine is certainly contained within the Holy Writ).
While you might certainly want to add that “tradition” is also to be taken into account as profitable for doctrine, etc…we have to ask the question of why didn’t Paul say so here? Why didn’t he tell Timothy, as he was basically leaving to Timothy the answer of authority in the Church upon his own impending death? I’m going to attach a sermon that I preached at my Church on this particular text showing conclusively that Paul was basically saying to Timothy, “Timothy, when I die, do not be anxious about who you will look to for doctrinal and moral authority. You know the Scriptures and have known them since your youth. They, as the product of God Himself, are able to lead you into correct doctrine and morals. These will complete you and thoroughly equip you.”
Now, Scripture is not declared to be the “foundation” per se in this text or any other text that I’m aware of. But what is Scripture declared to be? In John 17:17 Jesus says to God, “Your word is truth.” Now, the Church was said to be the “pillar and foundation of truth”. That means that the Church upholds the word of God. Again, reverting to what Calvin commented, it is the Church that is charged with such an obligation to uphold and support the Word of God in the world. The Church is not the truth, but she supports it while in the world. The Church does not determine truth. Truth, by nature, is eternal. In creation, God spoke all things into being. By God’s word even, the Church came into being.
Hence, we actually agree that the Church must hold the truth together. We must defend the faith. We must “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The world isn’t going to stand up for God’s truth. The Muslims aren’t going to do it. Government isn’t going to stand up for God. It is the Church that is charged with the solemn responsibility of upholding the truth in the world. As long as the Church upholds the truth, as long as we are the salt and light of the earth, we honor God. But when we falter and let the truth go unannounced or allow it to be trampled upon, especially the truth of Jesus Christ, as I Timothy 3:16 continues, the “mystery of godliness”.
In a sense, you can see the passage actually charging pastors and teachers to defend the faith. Basically, giving a scriptural charge for apologetic ministry, especially to the unbelieving world. For instance, as of late there have been recent attempts to debunk Christianity including the Gospel of Judas discovery, The Da Vinci Code and even the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb (Jesus Family Tomb) which was said to contain the bones of Jesus in it. I have personally sought to refute such claims and affirm Jesus as resurrected from the grave. That is one way that I, as a member of the Church, can do my part in being the “pillar and support of truth”.
That this is the correct understanding of the text is added to by the context that follows. After declaring the truth that we confess (3:16), Paul goes on in chapter 4 to describe the doctrinal dangers that will confront the Church in the last days. “Doctrines of demons” are what the Church needs to stand against. That is our charge.

Response to Fighting Vatican (Part 1)

I have had much recent activity through my YouTube videos against Roman Catholicism lately. I have had many heated email exchanges and such, but I want to share my responses that I'm currently making to a particular Roman Catholic by the name of "FightingVatican" I'll post his question followed by my answer. Enjoy.

Why is the the Church a body of believers? If the Church is just all the the believers, then why is the Church the "Pillar and Foundation of Truth?" (1 Tim 3:15) What can you take from that?

First of all, let me describe the Church from the Scriptures. In such passages as Ephesians 5:25-29 the Church is described as the “bride” of Christ for whom Christ died. I Corinthians 3:10-17 declares us as “God’s building” as “God’s temple” in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. It is people here that Paul has in mind. Not an institution. Every believer is a part of the Church. The Greek word most often translated as “Church” is ekklesia which means “assembly” or “gathering”. “This word, taken from common usage where it applied to the ‘calling out’ of citizens for a civic meeting or of soldiers for battle, is used extensively throughout the Old and New Testaments to refer to the people of God (e.g. Deut. 4:10; 9:10; 31:30; Mt. 16:18’ 18:17; Acts 5:11; Rom 16:5; I Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:22; 3:10; Heb. 12:23)” (From Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, pg 147). Christ died for the sins of His people and it is them that He saves (Matt 1:21), not an institution.
As per I Timothy 3:15 let me quote John Calvin at length for I think he said it best in explaining this passage. He says,

“No ordinary enhancement is derived from this appellation. Could it have been described in loftier language? Is anything more venerable, or more holy, than that everlasting truth which embraces both the glory of God and the salvation of men? Were all the praises of heathen philosophy, with which it ahs been adorned by this followers, collected into one heap, what is this in comparison of the dignity of this wisdom, which alone deserves to be called light and truth, and the instruction of life, and the way, and the kingdom of God? Now it is preserved on earth by the ministry of the Church alone. What a weight, therefore, rests on the pastors, who have been intrusted with the charge of so inestimable a treasure! With what impudent trifling do Papist argue from the words of Paul that all their absurdities ought to be held as oracles of God, because they are the ‘pillar of truth,’ and therefore cannot err!
First, we ought to see why Paul adorns the Church with so magnificent a title. By holding out to pastors the greatness of the office, he undoubtedly intended to rmind them with what fidelity, and industry, and reverence they ought to discharge it. How dreadful is the vengeance that awaits them, if, through their fault, that truth which is the image of Divine glory, the light of the world, and the salvation of men, shall be allowed to fall! This consideration ought undoubtedly to lead pastors to tremble continually, not to deprive them of all energy, but to excite them to greater vigilance.
Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the ‘pillar of truth’ is that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not Himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known His truth; but He employs pastors, whom He has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called ‘pillar of truth’; because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men. (Calvin’s Commentary, volume XXI, Epistle to Timothy, pg. 89).

In other words, what Calvin is arguing is that the Church – the body of believers, but here in context, especially its ministers – are the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Now, one should recognize the difference between something that upholds and something that is the final arbiter of truth. A pillar and foundation are structures that hold something up. In this case, they uphold truth. They are not the creators of truth. They merely support the truth and uphold it, and especially remain subservient to it (loosely quoted from The Roman Catholic Controversy, James R. White, pg. 58 ).

I hope that I have answered that questions in a descent manner for you. I would certainly encourage you to look up the Scriptures that were quoted and see that the Church is the body of believers. Institutions do not believe; people believe. Sinners believe in Christ unto salvation. Not an institution or a building.