What Sayeth the Lord

Musicmaster

Musicmaster

In Session 6, Chapter 16, Cannon 9 from the Council of Trent:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Obtaining the grace of justification? In other words, works, as defined elsewhere in these writings? The Lord inspired it to be written that works of the law, which will also apply to any other "works" based system of writings for requirements, simply will never suffice in surpassing faith towards Christ Jesus is the operative "mechanism" (dare I used that word) apart from anything else that would ever take away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ Jesus.

Acts 13:39 "and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Beleief = faith!

Romans 3:24, 28
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ... 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

What releases that redemption? Faith!

Romans 5:1, 9
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ... 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

Faith!

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Called because of faith!

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Faith!

Can't be more clear than that.

Faith + works = DEAD!

Faith = Justified, which leads to an outflow of good works toward God and others!

MM
 
Canon 11 isn't al that good either:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The council that came up with this stuff seem to have a problem with imputation because their their belief that it's all infused, like an IV drip. It seems to me that this all is an attempt at not only denying the Gospel of Christ Jesus, but also to enslave people to some necessity for returning time after time to get the next "drop" in the IV tube of their souls rather than reliance upon the imputation that's a one-time work by the power of the blood of Christ and by faith.

The next one is equally as bad:

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

Again and again, throughout these anathemas, that council exhibited a complete disregard, and downright hatred, for the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, and all confidence we may place in Christ Jesus and His sacrifice for us all.

What y'all think?

MM
 
CPerkins said:
I believe that there was much more going on in those days than history books record.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. There was considerable "intrigue" in the political arena as well. Power always has a tendency to corrupt. The powers that be at that time seemed to despise the Sovereignty of God and His absolute truths.

MM
 
Those in that council might be said to have fallen under this condemnation:

Titus 1:15-16

15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.
16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny [Him], being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

Where it's true that these verses are couched within a particular context, they have universal application when it comes to those who deny the very word of God for what it clearly teaches. Teaching that those who believe what the Bible says should be considered anathema, in spite of what's pointed out in the verses I quoted in the OP of this thread, what else could be said of them that could be anything but that they are deniers of God, impure in their thinking, with defiled consciences? They are vile, abominable and disobedient, and therefore disqualified for every good work.

The chains of enslavement those canons and a number of others have wrapped around those who ever bound themselves to men like that, it is a pity indeed the jeopardy they placed themselves, for as the law cannot save, and condemns those who believe they can do them without violating in one point, and therefore being guilty of all, works of any kind believed to justify by any means can also be said to fall within the same category of condemnation.

What say you?

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Canon 11 isn't al that good either:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The council that came up with this stuff seem to have a problem with imputation because their their belief that it's all infused, like an IV drip. It seems to me that this all is an attempt at not only denying the Gospel of Christ Jesus, but also to enslave people to some necessity for returning time after time to get the next "drop" in the IV tube of their souls rather than reliance upon the imputation that's a one-time work by the power of the blood of Christ and by faith.

The next one is equally as bad:

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

Again and again, throughout these anathemas, that council exhibited a complete disregard, and downright hatred, for the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, and all confidence we may place in Christ Jesus and His sacrifice for us all.

What y'all think?

MM
Click to expand...

I believe that all of those "Canons" are from the Roman Catholic council.......correct?
 
Just an aside...

Years ago, when I was in military tech school in temporary living quarters I attended an off-base non-denominational church. I noticed in their by-laws that although they recognized and appreciated many of the traditional confessions and statements of faith that they held none of these as infallible and noted that many of the most internally destructive arguments through out the history of Christianity has been over the wording and meaning of these documents. Many times the wording was to address a perceived issue that may no longer be relevant in today's society. Instead, they only recognized the Bible as written authority. While they full well knew that this leaves much in the way of interpretation and application, that this was the nature of faith that it works within each believer. The congregation (usually in reality the board of deacons) discussed how issues were to be resolved within the local congregation and what the teaching of the church would be.
 
Major said:
I believe that all of those "Canons" are from the Roman Catholic council.......correct?
Click to expand...

Umm...yes, it looks like you're right. It's my understanding that recent popes have gone against these canons by declaring that salvation does exist outside their rule and sole sourcing for salvation, which is the exact opposite of what these canons indicate.

You know, the glaring reversals in doctrine over the centuries seem to point not infallibility, but rather fallibility. I'm sure someone out there could come up with some justifications for the complete reversals in their doctrines, which I invite, but all of this, in my mind, paints a very schismatic, unstable portrait of the god the leadership in those times, up through today, believe in.

The God portrayed in the Bible not only said that He changes not, but has demonstrably exhibited that very stability in HIs character. The God of the Bible is infinitely more stable than mankind and his doctrinal beliefs, no matter what grouping one may point at.

MM
 
I did not know this "Council of Trent" either. I just looked it up. In Wikipedia I found ...
(I know, I know, Wikipedia is not usually considered as a reliable source, but from my professional experience I know that Wikipedia is reliable in "unproblematic matters" to ca. 99% and in "problematic matters" to ca. 2-60%, depending on the area of inquiry)
... that the Council of Trent was basically a council of the Roman Catholic church with the main purpose to condemn the doctrines of the Reformation and to strenghten the so-called counter-reformation.
So, I think this says enough about the validity and truthfulness of this "Council".
 
Musicmaster said:
Umm...yes, it looks like you're right. It's my understanding that recent popes have gone against these canons by declaring that salvation does exist outside their rule and sole sourcing for salvation, which is the exact opposite of what these canons indicate.

You know, the glaring reversals in doctrine over the centuries seem to point not infallibility, but rather fallibility. I'm sure someone out there could come up with some justifications for the complete reversals in their doctrines, which I invite, but all of this, in my mind, paints a very schismatic, unstable portrait of the god the leadership in those times, up through today, believe in.

The God portrayed in the Bible not only said that He changes not, but has demonstrably exhibited that very stability in HIs character. The God of the Bible is infinitely more stable than mankind and his doctrinal beliefs, no matter what grouping one may point at.

MM
Click to expand...

Correct my brother.

There are about 32 canons where Popes have declared a doctrine that is outside of the Scriptures.
 
Major said:
Correct my brother.

There are about 32 canons where Popes have declared a doctrine that is outside of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...

If I understand the Catholic viewpoint (not being my church, I do not speak for them). the Catholic Church claims full authority and thus infallibility for itself.

They also claim that Protestantism is a heresy, but does not hold it to be damning.
 
Siloam said:
If I understand the Catholic viewpoint (not being my church, I do not speak for them). the Catholic Church claims full authority and thus infallibility for itself.

They also claim that Protestantism is a heresy, but does not hold it to be damning.
Click to expand...

What puzzles me is that declaring their institutionalized religion infallible, and then later making allowances to get around those absolute declarations for doctrine from that council, that tends to betray something far removed from infallibility. To say that salvation can exist along other paths simply by knowing of Christ:

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!

What I wonder about are all those other religions out there not based upon the Bible, and therefore teach of a Jesus who doesn't even exist by declaring things not even hinted at in scripture. Such non-existent beings cannot save anyone. That's alarming.

MM
 
Siloam said:
If I understand the Catholic viewpoint (not being my church, I do not speak for them). the Catholic Church claims full authority and thus infallibility for itself.

They also claim that Protestantism is a heresy, but does not hold it to be damning.
Click to expand...

True. What the Pope says is more acceptable than what the Bible says because the RCC believe that the Pope is an Apostle hence he can change bible doctrine.

Not I am not sure what you mean by the word "damning".

The Roman Catholic Church says they are the only true church? They say "Outside the Church there is no salvation." The Protestant Church(s) according to Roman Catholics are anathema - that is condemned or cursed.

Essentially the Catholic Church says: "all Protestants fall under at least ONE Latae Sententiaethat automatically subjects US to majoe excomunication:
1. IF we do not submit to the Pope we are "schismatics.
2. If we knowingly reject at least ONE point of RCC dogma, we are heretics.
3. If we knowingly believe certain ideas the RCC explicitly condemns, we are heretics.
4. If we have our own churches we are schismatics and sectarians.
Source:http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/43371

So again, I guess it depends on what the word "damning" means.
 
Major said:
Not I am not sure what you mean by the word "damning".
Click to expand...
I was trying to remember the proper word as it was explained top me by a Roman Catholic...

The word is "mortal" as a difference between a venial {minor???) sin and mortal sin (their terminology not mine).

As I age, I find more and more things I know become more and more difficult to recall at my command.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top