The Magisterium instructed me

1. Vincent said,

   November 12, 2014 at 2:50 pm

   DeMaria this Quote from trent demolishes your Interpretation:

   we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.

   See habitaual or justifying grace is not merited before baptism.
2. 
   

   De Maria said,

   November 12, 2014 at 3:40 pm

   Vincent,

   I already answered that. See #398.
3. 
   

   Kevin Failoni said,

   November 12, 2014 at 4:51 pm

   roberty bob said : you have tied yourself in knots. Let me tell you the truth.” Take it up with Paul Galatians 3: 12 ” However, THE LAW IS NOT FAITH.” You probably don’t get around to that Epistle or chapter to often because its detrimental to your semi pelagian gospel. The antithesis for Paul in justification in the book of Galatians was between hearing by faith an works. Faith and doing. Don’t conflate law and gospel. K
4. 
   

   Tim Harris said,

   November 12, 2014 at 5:34 pm

   Reed invited us to make a final statement on these tangential issues and then let it go. So here is my final statement on the subject of perspicuity.

   dM asked for a proof of perspicuity from Scripture. So here it is:

   Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

   (and lest anyone jump in and suggest “testimony” means “tradition,” a quick google search of correlative passages will soon disabuse of that mistake)

   Thus, what we have is that Scripture is sufficient both in content and clarity to settle the question whether a new doctrine, however sensible and persuasive it might seem on its own terms, should be accepted. The clarity of Scripture is prior to, and makes possible, the clarity of any subsequent doctrine or tradition. Thus, dM has it exactly backwards.

   But as I pointed out when dM asked the question, the Scripture proof of perspicuity also presupposes perspicuity. For, if Scripture is dark and obscure, then the verse purporting to prove the opposite is also dark and obscure, awaiting the Magisterium to tell us what it really means, with clarity. Thus, whether you think Scripture is clear or obscure, fundamentally is not based on a verse (though taught by Is. 8:20), but on the meta-understanding of what Scripture actually is.

   So here is a meta proof, based on the nature of linguistic communication and persons.

   1. Language is s shared possession of a community, not something private.

   2. Every honest speaker intends his utterance to be understood.

   3. The greater the speaker’s competence, the greater his success at this.

   4. God is a supremely honest and competent person.

   5. Therefore, when he speaks, it is clear.

   This does not mean I can pick up Habbakuk, or a book on Thermodynamics, and instantly and with ease understand every sentence.

   But it means I can in principle — if I am smart enough, know enough about the language, am not spiritually resistant to its meaning, and so forth. At no time would the meaning be obtained or settled just because a man wearing a mitre said it meant such-and-such. Neither in the case of Habbakuk, nor Fermi.

   The man wearing the mitre might bring considerations to the table that were very helpful in understanding a text; just as a Physics prof might be very helpful in understanding Fermi.

   So, when papists aggressively cite Scripture to prove popish distinctives, there is something fishy going on. The form of the argument must be hypothetical, something like this:

   IF (Scripture were perspicuous) THEN (verse such-and-such proves the immaculate conception or whatever)

   The punchline is not this or that isolated doctrine, but popery as a system. So it’s going to be a stretch to get from a sack of isolated doctrines to popery. However, let that go. Let’s give them that. Thus, the argument seems to be
   P —> Q
   “if Scripture is perspicuous, then popery is true”
   Otherwise, if the Scripture quotes are just a proxy for “whatever the infallible Magisterium teaches,” then the quotes prove nothing. It would be question-begging.

   Of course, they don’t believe that Scripture is perspicuous, and indeed, say that this is one reason we need popery, i.e.
   ~P —>Q
   “if Scripture is not perspicuous, then popery is true.”
   Of course, this is also not very plausible unless you already “buy into” many things as beyond dispute on other grounds. If Scripture is not perspicuous, how do we know Talmudism isn’t true? But again, let it go for now.

   It is a theorem of logic that
   (p->q) & (~p->q) -> q
   that is, if q is entailed both by something and its denial, then q is true.

   Thus, the strategy for using Scripture proofs, which they don’t really think is possible to give, must be part of a larger structural argument as just outlined.

   But on their terms, P being false means they have no basis for believing their exegesis of P based on linguistics. It could only be assertions learned from the perspicuous Holy Tradition or the Magisterium.

   In other words, the papists’ use of Scripture is entirely ironic or even subversive, since it is naught but a subterfuge for listing doctrines derived from the Magisterium, not from Scripture.

   This has been amply demonstrated in the discussion, since when the exegesis is disputed on linguistic grounds, then (and only then) the true basis for the doctrine is finally revealed.

   This is why I say Popery is power religion. The truth is defined by the most powerful. The citation of Scripture is a judo argument, hoping to trip up the Christian in terms of his own foundation.
5. 
   

   De Maria said,

   November 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm

   Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

   (and lest anyone jump in and suggest “testimony” means “tradition,” a quick google search of correlative passages will soon disabuse of that mistake)

   No need, Tim. The verse is not about perspicuity. It is about inerrancy which the Catholic Church upholds.

   Anyway, thanks for permitting to post here. Since Reed is getting ready to close the thread, I’d like to say farewell.

   Blessings to all,

   Sincerely,

   De Maria
6. 
   

   roberty bob said,

   November 12, 2014 at 8:24 pm

   There is no antithesis between believing and doing.

   By faith Abraham . . . did such and such. By faith they all did . . . !

   So we see that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

   Trust and Obey.

   Salt and Pepper.

   All the best, you guys!
7. 
   

   De Maria said,

   November 12, 2014 at 8:30 pm

   Hey, RB, visit me on my blog sometime.
8. 
   

   Jason Loh said,

   November 13, 2014 at 3:24 am

   Of course, there is the antithesis between believing and doing.

   We are justified APART from the works of the law …

   We are justified APART from the righteousness of the law …

   We are justified APART from the law …

   The law is NOT of faith …

   THE JUST SHALL WALK BY FAITH ALONE …

   ******* END OF STORY *******
9. 
   

   Ron said,

   November 15, 2014 at 6:46 pm

   dM asked for a proof of perspicuity from Scripture. So here it is:

   DM often tried to derive and defend dogma from Scripture.
10. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Great point..
11. 
    

    Ron said,

    November 15, 2014 at 8:05 pm

    The irony becomes most acute when appeals are made to the authoritative Word in all its clarity to establish the necessity of a magisterium to give us the interpretation of that very Word. As soon as a Roman Catholic reaches for his Bible he undermines Roman Catholicism.
12. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 15, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    So, is the thread closed? Or what?

    If not, then,

    Ron said,
    November 15, 2014 at 8:05 pm

    The irony becomes most acute when appeals are made to the authoritative Word in all its clarity to establish the necessity of a magisterium to give us the interpretation of that very Word. As soon as a Roman Catholic reaches for his Bible he undermines Roman Catholicism.

    I would say that as soon as a Protestant reaches for the Bible, he undermines the word of God because he reads into it his traditions of man.

    A perfect example is the idea of the clarity of Scripture. Scripture itself says that it isn’t perfectly clear:

    2 Peter 3:15-17King James Version (KJV)

    15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
13. 
    

    Ron said,

    November 15, 2014 at 11:16 pm

    A perfect example is the idea of the clarity of Scripture. Scripture itself says that it isn’t perfectly clear:

    Is Scripture clear about that or did the magisterium reveal that to you? Does Scripture reveal to you which portions of Scripture need to be interpreted for you or does the Magisterium inform you when to rely solely upon her? Seems you have an epistemological problem of insurmountable proportions.
14. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Ron said,
    November 15, 2014 at 11:16 pm

    Is Scripture clear about that or did the magisterium reveal that to you?

    The Magisterium instructed me in two ways.

    1st, the Catholic Church teaches to understand Scripture in accordance with the Tradition which is the basis of that Scripture.

    2nd, the Catholic Church wrote that Scripture. 2 Peter, is a part of the New Testament. As such, it was was written by the Catholic Church. As such, it contains the first infallible written instructions of the Catholic Church.

    Does Scripture reveal to you which portions of Scripture need to be interpreted for you or does the Magisterium inform you when to rely solely upon her?

    I understand all Scripture as instructed by the Catholic Church.

    113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

    Seems you have an epistemological problem of insurmountable proportions.

    The key words there are “seems to me”. In reality, there is no problem for Catholics. The ones with the insurmountable problems are Protestants, since their doctrines which contradict Catholic Teaching, also contradict Scripture.
15. 
    

    Ron said,

    November 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    2nd, the Catholic Church wrote that Scripture. 2 Peter, is a part of the New Testament. As such, it was was written by the Catholic Church. As such, it contains the first infallible written instructions of the Catholic Church.

    Given the context of my query you’re saying that you can understand the true meaning of Scripture because it’s the church speaking. Accordingly, the magisterium can only confirm what is already knowable apart from and prior to their interpretation of a given text. So much for the necessity of her interpretation, which probably explains why the OT people of God were responsible for what they could know apart from an infallible ecclesiastical interpreter.
16. 
    

    Ron said,

    November 16, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    I understand all Scripture as instructed by the Catholic

    The Roman communion has not interpreted the majority of Scripture. Consequently, the only latitude you have with most verses is to interpret them in a way that does not undermine Rome. By these calculations you really can’t know what “Jesus wept” means. You can just “know” that whatever it means it cannot undermine Roman dogma. You must allow for the possibility that it means we are justied by faith plus works or that motorcycles don’t have doors. It can at most affirm dogma and at least not refute it. Your mediator, the “church,” by her design would prevent the possibility of you understanding God’s word if not for the omnipotent grace of God. Christians praise God that He continues to penetrate the darkness Rome casts with the light of the gospel.
17. 
    

    Don said,

    November 16, 2014 at 11:49 pm

    De Maria 1210,
    “According to a saying of the Fathers, …” which we accept because Origen was never wrong?
18. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 17, 2014 at 9:44 am

    If Origen was never wrong then he was God. and the deposit which the Apostles gave us once and for all needed amending. when Revelations says let no one add or subtract from these words, it meant except for Origen and a few of his buddies. A canon isn’t open for changing, its perfect. The scripture is infallible because it is God breathed, and when a church misinterprets it, it is the duty of every believer to locate the error. The fathers were continually worried that error and apostasy was among them. So many wrote this, because they knew that the apostles constantly had to pushback error in the church and they knew according to Paul in 2 Thessalonians the apostasy was already at work in the church. It came on time. 4th century. The rise of Roman catholicism. It is the synagogue of Satan. To the Law and to the Testimony.
19. 
    

    roberty bob said,

    November 17, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    to #1215 . . . you say:

    “The scripture is infallible because it is God breathed, and when a church misinterprets it, it is the duty of every believer to locate the error.”

    No doubt you have done your duty in locating all of the errors of a particular church’s misinterpretation. My, oh my, have you ever done your duty!

    Now, I’m wondering what will happen when you make an error in your interpretation. Every believer, I’m sure, will do their duty and locate that error. Some of them will even point out your error so that you can see clearly where you went wrong. Then, what will you do?

    You haven’t done anything yet! And I think I know why not.
20. 
    

    Don said,

    November 17, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Roberty bob 1215,

    No doubt you have done your duty in locating all of the errors of a particular church’s misinterpretation.

    Did Kevin actually say he did this? No? Then stop making up nonsense.
21. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    roberty bob, we all have error in our theology right. We all have a fallible judgment informed by the” Holy Spirit.” But you put your trust in a church, and we put ours in the Word. But a church can’t save you, only the Word.
22. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 17, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Ron said,
    November 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    Given the context of my query you’re saying that you can understand the true meaning of Scripture because it’s the church speaking….

    No. I don’t know how to make it any clearer, so I’ll just copy what I said:

    Is Scripture clear about that or did the magisterium reveal that to you?

    The Magisterium instructed me in two ways.

    1st, the Catholic Church teaches to understand Scripture in accordance with the Tradition which is the basis of that Scripture.

    2nd, the Catholic Church wrote that Scripture. 2 Peter, is a part of the New Testament. As such, it was was written by the Catholic Church. As such, it contains the first infallible written instructions of the Catholic Church.

    Does Scripture reveal to you which portions of Scripture need to be interpreted for you or does the Magisterium inform you when to rely solely upon her?

    I understand all Scripture as instructed by the Catholic Church.

    113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
23. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 17, 2014 at 7:21 pm

    Don said,
    November 16, 2014 at 11:49 pm

    De Maria 1210,
    “According to a saying of the Fathers, …” which we accept because Origen was never wrong?

    Hello Don,

    I think I’ve explained before that it is the Church who sifts through the teachings of the Fathers and decides which are orthodox.

    You’re talking about this one which I quoted in my answer to Ron:

    113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”.According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

    This is one of those sayings which the Church accepted.
24. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 17, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Don said,
    November 17, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Roberty bob 1215,

    No doubt you have done your duty in locating all of the errors of a particular church’s misinterpretation.

    Did Kevin actually say he did this? No? Then stop making up nonsense.

    Don, #1213, I never claimed that Origen was never wrong. Yet you applied that nonsense to me. How is it that you permit yourself the luxury of using hyperbole to make a point, but deny it to Roberty bob?
25. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Kevin Failoni said,
    November 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    roberty bob, we all have error in our theology right.

    No. The Catholic Church teaches the infallible Theology of Jesus Christ.

    We all have a fallible judgment informed by the” Holy Spirit.”

    No. The Catholic Church teaches the Wisdom of God.

    But you put your trust in a church,

    In Jesus Christ through His Church.

    and we put ours in the Word.

    You put your trust in your fallible interpretation.

    But a church can’t save you, only the Word.

    But God does save us, through His Church.
26. 
    

    Don said,

    November 17, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    De Maria 1219,

    it is the Church who sifts through the teachings of the Fathers and decides which are orthodox

    It’s my understanding that Origen was rather deeply sifted thru, and a lot of his (what was later judged to be) nonorthodox work was thrown out. I wouldn’t trust his exegesis of Matthew 19:12, anyways.

    De Maria 1220,
    What are you talking about? 1216 is not addressed to you. I am not using any hyperbole here.
27. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 17, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    DaMaria said ” I understand all scriptureas taught by the Cathokic church” And I understand all scripture as taught by the Holy Spirit 1 John 2:27. And Jesus words were clear to me , unless a man is born again he will not see the kingdom of God. Molto perspicuoso. Does that seem reasonable?
28. 
    

    roberty bob said,

    November 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    Hi Kevin #1223 . . .

    Paul says to Timothy that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 . . . so those of us who understand all scripture as taught by the church have solid ground to stand on.
29. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 17, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    roberty rob We all listen to our teachers but 1 John 2:27 is clear, in the end we have no need for a teacher, but the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. Thats what that verse says. According to Calvin, God alone is the Lord of the conscience, not the church, and the church has no legislative power. it has only to proclaim the Law of Christ. The church and its leaders and sacraments do not function between God and His people in a mediatorial manner, because in scripture Jesus Christ alone is clearly said to be the only mediator and means of saving grace. 1 Tim. 2:5. There is no evidence anywhere in the NT that Jesus christ or his Apostles called the church into being with such a rigidly structured institutional hierarchy as purported by Catholicism. Outside of scripture the history of the early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Catholic church. RC Priesthood is a contradiction of the NT. 1 Pet 2:5-9, Rom5:1-2, Eph 2:18, James 5:16, Col3:16. RC hierarchy were not godly followers and obedient servants of christ. K
30. 
    

    roberty bob said,

    November 17, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    Furthermore, even the Presbyterians who monitor this blog site belong to a denomination that pledges doctrinal conformity to the Westminster Confession of Faith. So, these men are being taught by that standard how to understand and rightly interpret scripture. It has been agreed by these men that the Holy Spirit guided the Westminster Assembly into all truth; therefore, the church must adhere to it.

    Kevin, you are a free-wheeler who does not need the church to tell you how to understand scripture. You — all by yourself — have the Holy Spirit to teach you. Does your doctrine conform to the Westminster Confession of Faith? If it does not, you would be found to be in error by the churches who conform to that standard. Being found in error by the Presbyterians would not trouble you much because you are a Baptist who is not beholden to Westminster. You would even testify that the Holy Spirit led you to become a Baptist and not a Presbyterian. And certainly not a Roman Catholic.
31. 
    

    Reed Here said,

    November 17, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    Roberty, you don’t understand Presbyterians’s use of their standards.
32. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 18, 2014 at 7:43 am

    Roberty rob, I attend a bible church. I am Reformed. I consider guys like Reed or any Reformed Presbytyrian dear brothers in Christ. We may differ in a few things, church government, baptism, although I havent finalized my opinion on that yet. We all agree on the hinge and the WCF is the greatest confessin ever written.I listen to my Pastors but in the end I have the Holy Spirit who teahes me with and by the word.
33. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    Don said,
    November 17, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    It’s my understanding that Origen was rather deeply sifted thru, and a lot of his (what was later judged to be) nonorthodox work was thrown out. I wouldn’t trust his exegesis of Matthew 19:12, anyways.

    Now you see why the Catholic Church sifted through the teachings of the Church Fathers.

    De Maria 1220,
    What are you talking about? 1216 is not addressed to you. I am not using any hyperbole here.

    F’rgetaboutit. ;)
34. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 18, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    Kevin Failoni said,
    November 17, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    DaMaria said ” I understand all scriptureas taught by the Cathokic church” And I understand all scripture as taught by the Holy Spirit 1 John 2:27. And Jesus words were clear to me , unless a man is born again he will not see the kingdom of God. Molto perspicuoso. Does that seem reasonable?

    Not to me.

    Outside the Church, many interpret those words to mean by a proclamation of faith alone. I believe you adhere to this belief.

    While within the Catholic Church, we hold to being born again of water and Spirit. Therefore, we believe we are born again in the Sacrament of Baptism.

    If these words were perspicuous, everyone would get the same understanding. So, these words are not understood the same way by all and therefore are not perspicuous.
35. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 18, 2014 at 8:40 pm

    Kevin Failoni said,
    November 17, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    roberty rob We all listen to our teachers but 1 John 2:27 is clear, in the end we have no need for a teacher, but the Holy Spirit teaches us all things. Thats what that verse says.

    What that verse says is that those whom St. John addressed had received the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation. The verse has nothing to do with exegesis of Scripture.

    According to Calvin,

    Is Calvin your magistro? Your magisterium? Is he the one that interprets Scripture for you?

    Here’s the difference between you and I.

    The Bible clearly says that the Church is infallible:

    Ephesians 3:10 King James Version (KJV)

    10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

    But you follow a man which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. He came many centuries too late.

    God alone is the Lord of the conscience, not the church, and the church has no legislative power. it has only to proclaim the Law of Christ. The church and its leaders and sacraments do not function between God and His people in a mediatorial manner, because in scripture Jesus Christ alone is clearly said to be the only mediator and means of saving grace. 1 Tim. 2:5. There is no evidence anywhere in the NT that Jesus christ or his Apostles called the church into being with such a rigidly structured institutional hierarchy as purported by Catholicism.

    The institutional hierarchy is everywhere in the Bible.

    Jesus Christ made many disciples and from them appointed 12 Apostles and from them selected one Leader. He then commanded that Church to make disciples of the world the way that He had made disciples. And he said that any person who did not listen to the Church should be treated as a heathen.

    And the Apostles immediately began to appoint more officers to take their place.

    Outside of scripture the history of the early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Catholic church.

    On the contrary, a reading of the history of Christianity shows that the early Church was organized almost exactly as the Catholic Church is today.

    RC Priesthood is a contradiction of the NT.

    That is wrong.

    When the Apostles were picking corn on the Sabbath and the Pharisees complained, Jesus Christ compared them to the ministerial priests of the Old Testament, saying that they could work on the Sabbath and remain innocent.

    The lesson being that the Apostles were His priests:

    Matt 12:3-7

    1 Pet 2:5-9, Rom5:1-2, Eph 2:18, James 5:16, Col3:16. RC hierarchy were not godly followers and obedient servants of christ. K

    Don’t believe the hype. Jesus Christ said that His Church would not fall to the gates of hell. Believe Jesus and ignore those who hate His Church.
36. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 18, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Reed Here said,
    November 17, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    Roberty, you don’t understand Presbyterians’s use of their standards.

    I’ve sort of noticed that they use them when its convenient and ignore them otherwise. Is that the impression you get as well?
37. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 19, 2014 at 7:30 am

    DeMaria, in all due respect, you no nothing about Calvin or Reformed. Reformed and always being reformed, not always reforming. The Reformers reformed the church to the word of Godand to keep from the errors of Roman Catholicism and their human traditions, the reformers dismantled the ecclesiastical machinery that had developed which was mostly human in content and orgin.
38. 
    

    Reed Here said,

    November 19, 2014 at 9:31 am

    DeMarie, are you directing that charge of hypocrisy at me? Or just making a general accusation?
39. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 19, 2014 at 10:11 am

    DeMaria, said ” 1 John 2:27 means confirmation, and the verse has nothing to do with exegesis of scripture. This is ridiculous and your showing that you are interpreting fallibly for the church. Giving your private interpretation. Welcome to Protestantism. Does your church have an official position on this verse. I think not since they only have an official position on a small number of verses, something like 10 or so. The verse denies the need of a teacher, and is talking about the personal anointing of the Holy Spirit to yeah us all things. If this weren’t true, how could we as believers locate error in the church which we are called to do? How could we keep ourselves from idols as John instructs his little children?We aren’t to blindly trust any church. So, why do you? Look at the Bereans who were searching scripture to make sure Paul was right. Again this verse doesn’t abrogate the necessity to listen to our teachers, but it says in the end the Holy Spirit is responsible for teaching me, and it says its true and not a lie. I have no idea what you mean it has nothing to do with exegesis of scripture. If your saying that this scripture isn’t profitable for instruction, reproof, and training in righteousness, your wrong. All scripture is. You continue to pied pipe Reformed are lone ranger christians. But we are informed in the word and therefore Reformed. And may i suggest unless you take your implicit faith out of a self said perfect interpreter, and put it in the Word, you will end up short. The Pope can’t save you, only the real head of the church, Jesus Christ. God bless DeMaria. Hi ho silver!
40. 
    

    roberty bob said,

    November 19, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    I don’t recall DeMaria ever saying that the pope is his savior. What I hear him saying is that he believes God’s promise, trusts in Jesus Christ as his Savior, and obeys the commandments of Christ the Lord out of a heart of love. All of this is done through the Holy Spirit’s leading, and out of respect for the ordained authorities in Christ’s church.

    I recognize that as the same path of life that God has illuminated for me.
41. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 19, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    roberty bob, oh I thought a Catholic had to submit to the Pope as head to be saved? Enlighten me.
42. 
    

    roberty bob said,

    November 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    A Catholic would acknowledge the Pope as the God-ordained appointee to the Apostolic office which is foundational for Christ’s church. The Pope is a father in the same sense that the Apostle Paul was a father to the churches that he helped to establish. Thus, the Pope would be held in high honor for his office and ministry. A Catholic would submit to the Pope out of reverence for Christ, not in order to be saved. Somewhere in the NT epistles you will come across the command to submit to those in the church who rule over you, and even to give double honor to certain ones. So, submission is not a strange idea at all.
43. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 19, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    Reed Here said,
    November 19, 2014 at 9:31 am

    DeMarie, are you directing that charge of hypocrisy at me? Or just making a general accusation?

    Just agreeing with you Reed. Its impossible to know how Presbyterians use their standards.
44. 
    

    Kevin Failoni said,

    November 19, 2014 at 10:04 pm

    Roberty bob, I submit to my church leaders too. Thats not what I asked you. Colossians 1 says Christ is the head of His church. The Catholic church says the pope is head. Do you submit to Chist or the pope as head. It cant be both. Who do you submit tto as head?
45. 
    

    roberty bob said,

    November 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    The Catholic church agrees with the Apostle Paul — that Christ is the head of his church, which is his body.
46. 
    

    Don said,

    November 20, 2014 at 12:55 am

    But you follow a man which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. He came many centuries too late.

    Says the Roman Catholic, lol.
47. 
    

    Don said,

    November 20, 2014 at 1:09 am

    More seriously, it’s becoming clear to me that their Rome-based worldview makes it impossible for De Maria et al. to understand how the Protestant church operates–he admits as much in 1239 (although it seems like he’s trying to project and say it’s a general problem, not merely his own). That’s the only reason I can irencally imagine that e.g., he keeps trying to insist that Calvin is some sort of Magisterium.
48. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 20, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    Kevin Failoni said,
    November 19, 2014 at 10:04 pm

    Roberty bob, I submit to my church leaders too

    Which one? Do you consider him to have an account of your soul?

    Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)

    17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    . Thats not what I asked you. Colossians 1 says Christ is the head of His church.

    And John 21:17 says that Jesus appointed Simon as Shepherd of His Church:

    John 21:17King James Version (KJV)

    17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    The Catholic church says the pope is head.

    The Catholic Church says that Christ appointed the Pope as shepherd of His Flock.

    Do you submit to Chist or the pope as head. It cant be both. Who do you submit tto as head?

    I submit to the Pope because He represents Christ on earth:

    2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

    Does anyone on this earth represent Christ to you?
49. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 20, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    Don said,
    November 20, 2014 at 12:55 am

    Says the Roman Catholic, lol.

    I see the Catholic Church in the Bible.

    The Church remits or retains sin when the sins are confessed to a Priest (John 20:23).
    ,
    Mary is described as “kecharitomene”, ever full of grace. Where one is full of grace, there is no sin (Luke 1:28).

    Mary’s Assumption into Heaven,
    Rev 12:1

    indulgences,
    Matt 19:21;

    Purgatory,
    Rev 2:10

    the Treasury of Merit,
    Matt 6:19

    the office of pope,
    Matt 16:18

    praying to saints,
    Matt 10:41; Luke 16:24

    Every Catholic distinctive is in Scripture. But I don’t see faith alone or Scripture alone. In fact, they contradict Scripture:

    Not by faith alone:
    James 2:24King James Version (KJV)

    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    Not by Scripture alone:
    2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)

    15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
50. 
    

    De Maria said,

    November 20, 2014 at 9:04 pm

    Don said,
    November 20, 2014 at 1:09 am

    More seriously, it’s becoming clear to me that their Rome-based worldview makes it impossible for De Maria et al. to understand how the Protestant church operates–he admits as much in 1239 (although it seems like he’s trying to project and say it’s a general problem, not merely his own). That’s the only reason I can irencally imagine that e.g., he keeps trying to insist that Calvin is some sort of Magisterium.

    The opposite is true as well, Don.

    It is equally clear
    
     that their Reform-based worldview makes it impossible for Don et al. to understand how the Catholic Church operates.

    That’s the only reason I can irencally imagine that e.g., he keeps trying to insist that Calvin is some sort of Magisterium.

    If he ‘s not your magisterium, why do you and others, refer to him to explain certain doctrines and passages of Scripture? It is his world view that you accept. That’s why. Very simple.

    Here’s the difference between us. Jesus Christ established a Church and said that we must obey that Church. Scripture calls the Church the Body of Christ and the Pillar of Truth and we therefore believe that we must submit to that Church and obey because we believe she speaks for Christ.

    You, obviously don’t believe the Church speaks for Christ. You don’t believe the Church is infallible. Christ is obviously, infallible. Therefore, you set the Church aside.

    But when you come to difficult passages and doctrines, you turn to Calvin. From my perspective, In a very real sense, he has replaced Christ for you.

    Now, you’ll say, as Kevin has said, “the Church has replaced Christ for you.” But that would be false. I believe that Christ is speaking to us through His Church. This is why the Scripture says:

    2 Corinthians 5:20King James Version (KJV)

    20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.