Reform Now

Jehovah's Witness visit

2010-04-07T22:13:00.001-07:00

I was called upon by two JW's today- Mike and Brandt, by arrangement. The JW's deny the deity of Jesus Christ, believing instead that he was the archangel Michael!

My initial approach was to declare that I am a trintarian Christian, and am one because of the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is YHWH, 'Jehovah'. Their version of the Scriptures is a corrupt one 'the New World Translation'. It has taken great pains to take out any and all notions of the diety of Jesus Christ. But they didn't get rid of it all, and that is the wedge I can take advantage of.

My first dilemma to them- the comparison of Psalm 102 specifically verses 25-27, and Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes the Psalm. Here is the rub- the Psalm speaks very clearly about Jehovah the true unchangeable God, and the Hebrews passage then takes that and ascribes it directly to Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is a creature, as they say- then the writer of Hebrews has done something horribly inappropriate. Unless, of course, Jesus is Jehovah God, then it is appropriate. They will look into that for me, and prepare a response for next time.

The second of the dilemmas- John 12:37-41 and Isaiah 6:1-10. Specifically in John 12:41, where the 'glory' is mentioned by John- note that the glory that Isaiah saw is the same glory of Christ on earth. This is subtle, but the point can be made. The glory that Isaiah saw- YHWH, Jehovah. The glory that John saw- Jesus. John has no problem there connecting the two. Again, the promise to deal with these things is forthcoming.

The seven I AMs of John is one of the next things we will discuss in the future. They translate the I AM differently as 'I have been'. There is a rather long argument that takes one through Isaiah in the LXX to show the translation of Hebrew 'ani hu' into greek 'ego eimi'-then linking it to the Exodus IAM, and this helps form a foundation for the Apostolic use of I AM by John as identification of Jesus claim to be YHWH, coupled with the reaction of the Jews to Jesus 'I AM' statement in Chap 8.
Another target, the issue of the general disdain of the NW Translation of the Bible- even by non-trinitarians and agnostics.

They gave me homework too- Psalm 96:4-5 and Ecclisiastes Chapter 9.

God bless

'E'pologist melt-down

2010-04-01T21:49:00.000-07:00

The author of this blog- lattes & rainy days has cut me out of the discussion. That's okay, it's is her choice to do so. I guess I missed her disclaimer, that she didn't want emotions to run high, that it is somehow to be approached as a personal testimony, not a theological discussion. The thing that is strange is that at least 3 articles were written that attack Protestantism as being false, and present a video and hundreds of words listing numerous reasons that Protestantism is a disaster to be avoided. Many of her Protestant friends are responding with comments that indicate they are listening, and paying attention. The question is- what are they being exposed to- truth, or the twisted history that the modern pop RC apologists spit out?

To the world she proudly proclaims such RC 'dilemmas' to the Protestants such as sola Scriptura leads to chaos- 'And this is the result of us all reading the same, "perspicuous and self-interpreting" Scripture?' She pounds her pulpit with falsehoods such as 'since sola fide meant good works counted for nothing, morality became a real free-for-all.' Hmmm the Puritans were a real free for all bunch of folks, weren't they? Blanket assertions that do nothing BUT challenge a Protestant to respond such as- "we have anywhere 9,000 -34,000 Christian denominations and counting (depending on which resource you consult), all teaching something different, but all claiming to preach and teach the 'Bible alone.'" Well the Mormons and JWs and Roman Catholics in the 34,ooo don't teach the 'Bible alone'. The 'progressive denominations' in the list don't teach the 'Bible alone' either. They put the cultural norms on sexuality and morals ABOVE the Bibles norms- that is not 'Bible alone', it's more like 'Bible- as long as it doesn't teach false, offensive old notions that hold us all back in the dark ages'. How is that remaining true to the Bible? It's not!

I call a person who makes these posts available to all, with confident assertions and sources and persons responding- an apologist. And as such, I would say that she should expect challenges. Some of those challenges will come hard. Some of them she had never heard apparently. I'm sorry that she hadn't. Perhaps if she had heard the more solid arguments while she was Protestant, she would never have become Roman Catholic- in fact I am certain of it. It is never too late to get the facts and go where the truth is- and that is my prayer for her and her husband and family.

The Lord's blessings to all this Resurrection Sunday!

Tom Brown on the Canon- links to my articles

2010-03-18T21:08:00.000-07:00

Someone was having a problem locating my responses to Tom Brown, so I will link to them here.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

and coming- part 4 and possibly 5

Thanks,
God bless to all!

Complete and Total Blasphemy

2010-03-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

One of the issues that divides Roman Catholics and Protestants is the hyperdulia of Mary. The Roman Catholic points out this is not worship, it is appropriate veneration, given to the "Mother of God." We can then expect to hear an explanation of dulia and latria, and that latria is worship of God alone. Dulia is the honoring of saints, and is not an act of worship, according to our Catholic friends. I would argue that prayer is an act of worship. I would further argue that silent prayer is an attribute that is accessible only to God. Further, that omnipresence is required to get all of the prayers that are happening worldwide at any one time, and omnipresence is an attribute of God alone.

But all questions of worshiping Mary are settled with the writings of one Alphonsus Liguori. His most famous work on Mary is found here in total, The Glories of Mary. This is how it looks folks, to get 2,000 years past the ascension of our Lord, and to have devious, evil minds work on the question of Mary and her proper role in faith. Reading through the Gospels and the book of Acts- Mary was appropriately honored, most notably in Luke Chapter 1, but downplayed almost everywhere else- especially by Christ Himself! The New Testament is Christocentric, Mary is not the focus. Contrary to the Biblical notion of Mary, in "the Glories of Mary", we see the focus shift TO her. One can read the book in whole, but I will merely post the chapter titles, and let them speak for themselves. If this is not worshipful language- the giving of God's glory to the woman Mary, giving her credit for our salvation, calling her our only hope, and calling her the giver of eternal life- then perhaps I don't know what worship means at all. To rob glory and honor from God and give it to Mary is not honoring either of them. It needs to be rejected, my Catholic friends need to repent, and turn to Christ alone as our only hope of salvation. This is the clear message of the Gospel- repent, turn from your sins, turn to your only hope- Jesus Christ- He alone is our salvation, by no other name are we saved- He is Lord God almighty, and it is blasphemy to teach otherwise.

Here are the chapter titles of the book, to give you an idea of where A. Liguori takes dulia, and you tell me if this sounds like worship given to a goddess, or mere veneration. From the first book-

1. How great our confidence should be in Mary, who is the Queen of mercy. (Mary is the mother of penitent sinners)

2. Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins. She is our life because she obtains for us perseverance. Mary is our sweetness: she renders death sweet to her clients.

3. Mary is the hope of all- Mary is the hope of all sinners.

4. The promptitude of Mary in assisting those who invoke her. The greatness of the power of Mary to defend those who invoke her when tempted by the devil.

5. The necessity of the intercession of Mary for our salvation.

6. Mary is the advocate who is able to save all...Mary is the peace-maker between sinners and God.

8. Mary delivers her clients from Hell. Mary succors her clients in purgatory- Mary leads her servants to heaven.

9. How great are the clemency and compassion of Mary.

If you can stomach more, read the hymns dedicated to her- and tell me they are not worship.

Look at these attributes in the list- to say that Mary gives salvation, she intercedes, she has great power in her name, she is our only hope, she can save all, she delivers you from Hell, and leads you to heaven. To believe these things, your soul is doomed to eternal damnation in Hell. You will die in your sins. Mary is none of those things, nor she can do any of those things. How can I know that? The Holy Scriptures.

Jn 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes to Father except through me."

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Jesus said ask in His name and you shall receive. What can Mary do that Jesus the Lord can't?

Ligouri wants you to know this-

"But those who hope in Mary, as Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, who desires to see that greatest of His creatures honored...."

But it would seem this blasphemous Mary worshiper does not understand that Christ Jesus alone has obtained eternal salvation for His people. The honor does not belong to creatures- it belongs to the Creator.

Hebrews 9:12 -and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 12:2-fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 10:14- For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Jesus Christ alone has obtained eternal life, redemption, He is the author and perfecter of our faith, and has perfected us for all time- what need could we possibly have for Mary? None! Jesus did it- it was the work of God, for our salvation. Giving Mary the credit as though she achieved the work of the cross is unbiblical and absurd- and dangerous. How many people died clinging to the lies of Ligouri, to discover their hope was misplaced? Millions?

To all, I want to encourage you to read the Holy Bible with an open, receptive heart. Find out from God, as revealed in the Scriptures, how it is that we are saved. Ligouri and his prayers and psalms are blasphemous lies, and do not belong on the lips of anyone.

In Christ,
Garret

On Justification and Peace

2010-03-06T19:18:00.000-08:00

I have been dialoging with Tim Troutman and Bryan Cross and company over at their blog "Called to Communion". We had strayed off topic, and onto the subject "the peace of Christ", so I wanted to create this thread so we can discuss it here if they so choose!
The original post is found here enjoy!
Garret

The Canon Question, Tom Brown Part One

2010-02-25T16:30:00.000-08:00

An interesting and very LONG article by Tom Brown. I like Tom, and my interactions with him have been intense- he is a very smart, well written and well read man. I think his article suffers from more than a few flaws though.

First, sola Scriptura properly understood, and condensed into one sentence- the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, that is, the infallible rule of faith for the church. Notice how this concept refers to rules of faith- it doesn't say all knowledge is in Scripture, and that reasoning and factors outside of Scripture can't be used to bolster confidence in them. This will come up many times. This is not about sola Scriptura, it is about the canon of Scripture, but SS needs to be brought up here, because it brought up in the article being reviewed.

Secondly, he misrepresents Calvin's full treatment of the subject of Scripture in the Institutes by referring to Chapter 7 only, when it was treated in Chaps 6, 7, and 8. Were he to have used the full council of the Insititutes, he would have realized that Calvin held the plural view that he recognized in his article elsewhere. For instance, from book one, Chapter 8 of the Institutes, we see him give credit to Gods providence through the Church, who protected and preserved it.

Third, the attempt to pull the legs out from the very ability of the Protestant canon to exist by virtue of the fact that for man to select a canon is to put man over the canon. This also destroys the notion for anyone to select a canon, the Romans and Orthodox as well. Why for instance do they get a free pass- well, God guided the choosing of the canon. For us Protestants it would seem then, that it is merely an act of men, God could not have guided this decision in the least. That does not fit the Christian view of reality at all. Most importantly for Protestants, perhaps we would claim that the 'refining' of the canon into its 66 books is a work of God, not man- so the objection centered in man is irrelevant. You won't see many God fearing Protestants claiming they can just rip books out of Scripture at will.

A quick definition at the top- Canon means 'measure', or 'rule' and is a reference to the collection of the books of the Bible. The Protestant canon is 66 books, the Roman Catholic is 73. The difference is in the Old Testament. Basically the question on the table is "Justify your truncated Old Testament canon, by what authority do you decide this?" We were not the first of course. the modern Jewish canon is the Protestant OT canon.

Further things to ponder before we dig into the article itself-

Note how Athanasius, writing LONG before an infallible canon was selected by Rome (Not until Trent actually), handled the issue of canonical and non canonical books- and which books he names!

Some additional points that Turretinfan brings forward on the issue of 'canon' truths to know and consider-

Jesus was able to tell the Jews to "Search the Scriptures" without the Jews needing an infallible canon to know what were the Scriptures. Paul was able to talk to Timothy about the Scriptures in the same way, and the whole visible church managed to get by without an infallible canon of Scripture at least until Trent.

If you have "the Bible" you can deduce the canon. This seems simple, but the Scriptures we have are not Scriptures that WE decided are Scriptures. We come to Christ as believers and begin to gladly read the Scriptures that we are given. God secures this for His people, we have to trust His guidance.

Having Scripture is the antecedent for having Sola Scriptura. First we are given the Scriptures, then we believe what they say. I realize this is boundlessly inconvenient for folks who wish to misrepresent Sola Scriptura, but it is what it is.

Further, this is not an endevour that bothers the majority of the Christian world- as Tom mentions in the article. Toms comments are in Courier type.

II

For Harris, having a variety of canon theories within the Protestant academy is tolerable, so long as they each yield the 66-book Protestant canon. But as Dr. Flesseman-van Leer has rightly observed, those who accept the traditional canon of Scripture today cannot legitimately defend it with arguments that played no part in its original formation. ⁷ Post hoc rationalization of such a critical point as the formation of the canon would be like painting a target around one’s arrow that is already embedded in the wall. If a rule which has led some to the 66-book canon proves false, or fails to be truly objective, the remedy is not to find a new rule allowing us to reach the same conclusion. Instead, to be intellectually honest, we must find the rule that is ultimately right and true, and accept where it leads us, wherever it leads us.

This statement is valid, as far as it goes. We should strive to understand what logic men used, what were their reasons behind selection of the canon. However-new light must be allowed to emerge. We have it much better than the church of the second century as far as manuscripts that we can refer to, both OT and NT. We can use computers to access libraries of information, whereas libraries and manuscripts were incomplete then! We must also be allowed to build upon the minds of the past, insight upon insight, 'standing on the shoulders of giants' as it were. Yes, we shall not claim that the ancients used techniques and arguments that they didn't, but we don't have to do what they did exactly as they did either.

A.

The Classical Reformed View:

The classical and confessional Reformed answer to the Canon Question stresses that the Holy Spirit is our immediate assurance of the canon’s truth, and also notes that the reliability of Scripture appears from within Scripture itself.

Assurance is confirmation, not selection. We will see this claim extended to allegedly be subject to not just a test of determination by experienced theologians, but by 'babies in the Spirit'. In otherwords- the above claim and all it entails is to be 'put to the test-' used by people who have just been converted- who are then told to select what is and isn't Scripture from a mixed pile of writings. Of course, this is silly, and is an example of selecting a canon, not a feeling of assurance of the canons truth from the Holy Spirit that a believer comes to feel. He also claims that it is immediate. I have never seen the claim that it is immediate discernment.

Re: Calvin-
His answer, then, is that we can be assured that Scripture is of God simply by looking at it, just as we can tell black from white simply by looking at it.

Reading Chapter 7, this is largely fair as far as I can tell. Once again, I don't see Calvin saying "this is how to select the canon of Scripture" Instead, we see him telling us that we don't need a church authority to tell us these are Scriptures, as God confirms it in the Spirit. The Scriptures also objectively and directly give themselves this authority. Continue reading my post, you will come to Bahnsen's article on Self- Attestation. His opening paragraphs exhaustively cover this self- authority.

This is essential to the Reformed system because if Scripture were subordinate to fallible human authority, its contents could be erroneous, thus rendering Scripture unreliable. And if Scripture were unreliable, it could not act as our sole infallible authority over all matters of the faith.

This is essential for all believers, I would say. We all claim that God is the author. Here is an example where he ties sola Scriptura into the discussion. Sola Scriptura could be applied to multiple canons of Scripture. If it was, you could in fact be looking at different doctrines altogether, though that depends on what the Scriptures say.

'THE TEST'
If the classical Reformed canon criterion were true and we set various candidate texts, like books or passages from the New Testament, apocryphal works, or revered writings from the early Church Fathers, in front of new Christians who have the Spirit but have never read the Bible, they would all pick out the same books or passages as canonical.

Again, the equating of attestation with selection methodology. History shows how canon issues were settled. This was a work of God- His providence. A great article on the subject, from the reformed position is here. Notice how Dr. Greg Bahnsen carefully makes vital distinctions. There is a distinction between recognizing the canon and the nature of the canon. Notice the role of the Spirit is to confirm the objective claim that the Scriptures make about themselves- to be the very word of God. Notice how the Scriptures come forth as an act of God's providence, NOT by sitting down and asking the Spirit to show us what is and isn't Scripture for the purpose of creating a canon.

On to Part II

The Canon Question, Tom Brown Part Two

2010-02-25T16:20:00.000-08:00

Back to John Calvin-

As an initial matter, Calvin misstates the Catholic position by stating that, according to the Catholic Church, Scripture has its authoritative weight accorded to it by the Church. Rather, the Catholic position is that Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed, the Holy Spirit having inspired the texts’ authors...First Vatican Council...Dei Verbum, written by Pope Paul VI in 1965. These texts prove that the Catholic Church...

Calvin had his opponents that he was referring to. Technically then, if Calvin was accurately portraying his opponents position, then Tom Brown and modern Roman Catholics agree with Calvin that his opponents were making an erroneous argument. But to say he wasn't accurately portraying the Catholic position is to apply his argument to the Vatican one and DV claims. Well, they weren't extant in his time. It would seem his opponents were possibly satisfied with a bare authority claim of the Church as the final say in the matter. This notion is absurd to John Calvin and Tom Brown.

More on the issue at hand

[A]part from Magisterial guidance concerning the canon, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for all believers independently to come to complete agreement about the canon without each believer receiving miraculous enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

Without God's guidance. Understand that the RCC claims that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Also, notice the need for 'miraculous enlightenment' this is not the same as the claim that had been presented by the reformed side regarding Spiritual confirmation of the Scriptures.

Note the significance of Calvin’s addition of the word “teaching” to his restatement of Ephesians. But St. Paul actually says that the Church is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles themselves. For Calvin, a teaching has authority, not the teacher. He treats Paul’s statement that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” as referring to a set of teachings, not any persons.

Calvin’s whole doctrine of Scripture revolves around this insertion of the word “teaching” into St. Paul’s statement to the Ephesians, and upon seeing the teacher as having authority derived from the teaching only insofar as he holds to that teaching...The Church is not founded upon these words, the teachings of prophets and apostles, but upon the prophets and apostles themselves based on their divine authority. Because of the prophets’ and apostles’ divine authorization, we can know the teaching they transmitted to be divine in origin.

Here we see a bit of drifting into a claim of theological corruption on the part of Calvin. The teaching of the Apostles comes not from themselves, but God. Roman Catholics are hard focused on the notion that its the Apostles the Church is built on, and the Apostolic succession rides on that very notion. Irenaeus said "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." Huh? the Scriptures are the ground and pillar according to this Father. No mention that Apostolic succession is the focus, but the Scriptures are.

Regarding Ridderbos-
If Scripture is the sole infallible authority of the faith, and everything else is subordinate in authority to Scripture, then the basis for determining the canon cannot be any authority but Scripture...Lessons of history, use by Hebrew-speaking Jews of the time of Christ, prophetic and apostolic authority, and the like–each of these involve criteria by which a text is judged to be canonical that is extra-canonical, so goes beyond the canon itself, and thus posits a canon above the canon.

Tom Brown likes this- he considers this honesty, the other positions to be a dodge of the real issues. Again, sola Scriptura does not mean that we cannot use reason or seek confirmation in history. I haven't read the book, so I can only work with this quote. How does Ridderbos say that we came to get the canon of Scripture? Would he say that any effort of man fails, including the Roman Catholic effort? What if God has decreed that He would work through man to sort and organize the Scriptures? I have read a few of the responses of Tom to inquisitors about Ridderbos, and I'm seeing only the appeal to reason as being inadequate. The appeal to reason alone IS inadequate according to orthodox (small o) Christianity in general. God provides and guides.

But prior to Calvin, the Church never used this method to recognize a book as belonging to the canon.

Not true. Please see my post on the subject of self attesting , just a week ago. The total list includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Nemesius of Emesa, Salvian the Presbyter, Origen, Epiphanius, and Augustine.

Today’s average Protestant does not study why he has the Protestant 66-book canon, and does not independently decide if the Bible handed to him is correct. Rather, he accepts as an a priori of his Protestant faith that the 66-book canon is correct. Belief that the 66-book canon is right is part and parcel with the small cluster of unifying evangelical Protestant beliefs. Since it is a unifying principle for most Protestants, we would hardly expect to see anything but universal agreement; thus we can draw no lessons about the canon from this widespread agreement.

I would say that the lessons we can learn about the Roman Catholic Church includes a remarkable lack of unity in the body in anything other than a very superficial 'gather together' mentality. Phil Johnson goes out of his way to make this point very clear, with links to Catholic sites galore as proof. But I digress.

To resolve the disputes that lingered in spite of his supposedly objective test, Calvin employed a potpourri of fall-back arguments to shore up his teaching that the Holy Spirit allows a reader to perceive directly what belongs to the canon of Scripture...Calvin, in using reason and historical proof to determine the canon (for example, by appealing to “those books” that have “been recognized [as canonical] from the church’s inception”), is either contradicting his principle that no evidence outside of Scripture can determine the canon, or is refining his principle in an ad hoc fashion.

Again, the lack of noticing the complete council in the Institutes in this matter has brought forth the notion that allegedly Calvin is telling his readers how to go out and select a canon of Scriptures for themselves. Now he supposedly has to back-peddle and beef up his arguments. No- in Chapter 8 (link in part one) Calvin considers "Secondary helps to establish the credibility of Scripture" including "proofs from Church history". He held what Tom would call a plurality view.

In part 3, I will get to the rest, I imagine it will be 4 parts

The Canon Question, Tom Brown Part Three

2010-02-25T16:10:00.000-08:00

Now we come to the section on the Old Testament canon.

Tom Brown uses the separation of a 'plural view' into its individual elements, shows how each element is not in itself sufficient to conclude canonicity on its own, and then proclaims victory. In otherwords- a person has a 'plural view', a combination of historical testimony of the early fathers as to Apostolic heritage of the Scriptures, early canon lists, Jewish considerations on their own Scriptures, internal testimony of the Scriptures, testimony of the Holy Spirit with our own spirit, etc. He then takes each one at a time, shows how each one alone cannot decide the canon and therefore we are supposed to conclude the Protestant canon of Scripture is incorrect. The problem with this idea is that none of the individual considerations are themselves complete without the support of the others to build a case, at least as far as settling a logical inquiry. So to then show how each individual aspect cannot lead us to confidently accept the canon is not showing how the sum total of the elements can! This is the very purpose of having a multi-faceted case in the first place- no one element alone can settle the inquiring mind- hence, give me as many reasons as I can gather. Having a plurality of reasons bolsters confidence in the subject. To me, this alone is sufficient reason to reject Tom Brown's article as a misguided attempt. Many of the objections he raises equally undermine the councils that discussed these matters in history as well.

I want to present some interesting, additional problems for the Roman Catholic, that are largely untouched by Tom in his article.

1> The Council of Trent's vote on the Deuterocanonicals was not overwhelming at all! Look at the figures- 24 yea 15 nay 16 abstain. This is hardly the result of a confident group of men harkening back to the Churches "always believed it so" confidence! Read more here. There was much infighting about the issue as recorded in Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent. Yet another eye-opening article here shows just how significant this is. It is actually demonstrated that the group inside Trent that was most knowledgeable about the issues of the apocrypha were voted down! In otherwords, if those scholars had their way, we would have the same canon of Scripture, 66 books.

2> The very impressive list of folks who did not hold to the larger RC canon in the Tridentine sense- and reflects the highest level of intellectuals in that Church. This list includes Cardinal Jimenez and His complutensian polyglot, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Origen, Bede, The Glossa Ordinaria, Cardinal Cajetan, Primasius, Agobard of Lyons, Aluin, Strabo, Haymo of Halberstadt, Ambrose of Autpert, Radulphus Flavicencius, Hugh of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, Peter Cellensis, Rupert of Deutz, Honorius of Auton, Peter Comestor, Peter Mauritius, Hugo Cardinalis, Phillip of Harvengt, Nicholas of Lyra, William of Ockham, Anoninus, Alonso Tostado, Denys of Carthusian, Thomas Walden, Jean Driedo, John Ferus, Jocobus Faber Stapulesis, Cardinal Ximenes and his Bible sanctioned by Leo X. .

3>The councils at Hippo and Carthage did not agree, either one of them, with the Council of Trent on the canon. It is true, that until the Council of Trent did define the canon for the RCC, that there was little controversy in challenging the deuterocanonicals, nor for putting up a challenge to say, Jude or Revelation.

4> Jewish historian Josephus testimony in Contra Apion Chapter 8 -
"[T]wenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses...
It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them."

The Jewish writings were divided into 22 or 24 books, depending on how they bound the books together. The Prophesy stopped, the Scripture stopped. Talmudic tradition also testifies to the cessation of the Holy Spirits work after Malachi.

More in Part 4!

On The Self-Attesting Nature of Scripture

2010-02-15T22:48:00.000-08:00

I'm reading arguably the best modern work on sola Scriptura extant- Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of our Faith- Volume 1 By David T King.
From Chapter 4-
"Because the Scriptures are God-breathed and therefore inspired, they are self-attesting as to their divine origin. This was one of the major truths propounded by the Reformers. But recognition of the self-attesting nature of God's word was not novel to the Reformers as some have charged. The view is also found in the writings of such early Church fathers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, also here, ...Origen (see 6)..."

Please note what these fathers actually say- they support the concept!

Further, he quotes Abraham Kuyper-

"It has often, however, been wrongly represented that by this witness was meant in a magic sense a certain 'ecstacy' or 'enthusiasm', and that it consisted of a supernatural communication from the side of God, in which it was said to us, 'This Scripture is my Word.' Thus it has been represented by some who were less informed, but never by our theologians. On the contrary, they have always protested against this representation....No, the representation of the Reformers was this, that this witness is to be taken as 'light so irradiating the mind as to affect it gently, and display to it the inner relations of the truth that had hitherto been concealed.' (ellipsis mine)

more from Kuyper-
"In by far the greatest number of cases this testimonium Spiritus Sanctii works gradually and unobserved. The 'enlightening' increases gradually in intensity, and in proportion as it grows stronger we see more, and see with more certainty, and stand more firmly."

May the Lord so lead us to Truth!

Tradition!

2010-02-12T17:00:00.000-08:00

I'd like to recommend to all the great movie from 1971, the musical "Fiddler on the Roof". It won three academy awards, the music and acting and story are fantastic, it's fun, and sad in the last half. Tevya's relationship with God is as a friend, though he knows his friend isn't going to give him an easy life, he wants to know Him and thirsts for that relationship. I hope Tevya came to find peace in the Messiah, Jesus- the Way, the Truth and the Life- as nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus, AMEN! You have to appreciate that they looked for their Messiah to rescue them out of their troubles near the end.

Tradition! That is what I wanted to talk about- in Gr. 'paradosis', usually translated as tradition- some 13 times in the New Testament-
Matthew 15:2, 3, 6
Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13
1 Cor 11:2
Galatians 1:14
Colossians 2:8
2 Thessalonians 2:15 and then 3:6

Of these times that 'tradition' is used, 3 are directly binding on Christians- 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 3:6.

Now the question I wish to explore- Is there support in any text refering to tradition in the Scriptures, to support the notion that there is to be a future unfolding of doctrinal development, or a dogma that awaits future definition?

Answer- NO

1 Corinthians 11:2 the tradition is- delivered.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 the tradition is- taught.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 the tradition is- received.

The Apostles delivered, taught and the Christians received. Here we are some 2000 years later, with the RCC and the EO claiming to be the recipients of this allegedly un-enscripturated tradition.

From D. King -
"We must remember that the meaning of 'tradition' (paradosis) as used in the New Testament is not always uniform, binding, or divine in origin as is the case with Holy Scripture. It can be used negatively or positively. Negatively, it can refer to a corrupt religious system ( Matt. 15, Mk.7, and Gal. 1:14), or to human wisdom, 'the tradition of men,' ordered according to 'the principles of the world' in opposition to the person of Christ and His work (Col 2:8). Therefore, in every case of binding Christian tradition where the noun paradosis appears, we know that these traditions have been identified and defined to the extent that the readers were able to keep, hold, and walk in them. The term paradosis never refers to a body of doctrinal or moral truths awaiting future identification and development like that defined in Roman terms as a seed or germ form would suggest"
Thanks to the fine book by David T. King, Holy Scripture, The ground and Pillar of our Faith- Vol. 1 Chap. 5

Also, please carefully read this fantastic article from the team at AOMin.org!

Discuss!

Response to "Joyful Catholic"

2010-02-04T13:00:00.000-08:00

I have been cut out from the 'discussion' that I was having with Joyful Catholic. Bless her heart, her method is to throw out '10' different objections to Protestantism as an answer to a simple charge or two. Throw out enough objections with no supporting proofs to bury your opponent and consider him/her refuted.
Here is her last response to me, and my unposted answer- I will follow with more comments to flesh out my answers, and address the rest of the charges as well, following the original response.

JOYFUL CATHOLIC-
It is dishonest of you to say Catholics 'work for their salvation.' We don't. Never have. The point is, Garrett, whether 33,000 or 100 or 3 we are not ONE as Jesus prayed for to the Father in John 17.

I confess :) I did not read the article. I'm not obsessed by the number of denoms so why waste precious time? Also, the Catholic Church has NO denominations. It is NOT a denomination of man, but is "pre-denominational" being founded by Christ. It is the Mother of All Mega Churches, as my husband likes to say, it is so large that it needs parishes.

The Catholic Church is not infallible,I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Only the Pope is, WHEN and ONLY when he speaks on matters of faith/morals) The Church was made up of sinners from the "get go" Judas, Peter's denial, all "dissing" Jesus at his crucifixion. When the Pope speaks on those matters, she IS infallible,for she is guided by the same Holy Spirit Jesus sent to watch over her and protect her from the "Gates of Hell."

Re: penance. Sorry I wasn't clear again. It may or may not be given at confession. The forgiveness is already given us by the priest - in persona Christi. We were really all saved when Jesus died on the cross, but yet we are told to "confess our sins, one to another" Penance is given to help us 'settle in our souls' and to experience that true peace of Christ even more fully by a collaborative effort. Mom's are completely capable of making the cake (of forgiveness)w/ no help, but they let their children contribute to feel the JOY of being a participant in the process. Does that help?

Of course we can't 'earn our salvation' by our good works, but we are not saved by "faith alone" either. James 2:24

We are told to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" That's severe. It also makes no sense if we're never in danger of losing our salvation after being "saved."

SO where do we go to 'settle our dispute(s)? Your church? Or the One Jesus built? Which church of the "far less" than 33,000 will settle this debate? Only ONE Garrett. The Bible interpreted by you or me alone is why the bible cannot be and is NOT the final authority.

I suggest you get the Catechism of the CC and ask God, in faith, with an open, docile heart to show you the Truth of the CC.

Also, Mike Aquilina has more information on the early Fathers of the Church.

I won't belabor this any longer. You are the one who's not desiring a conversation, but only tossing out verses to "prove me wrong." Not gonna do that. The Church is who and what she claims, or she is not. "Where Peter is, there is the Church." The better, safest place to be for us all, aspiring to sainthood, is IN HIS CHURCH. To be apart from it is a much 'harder' and more perilous road...so Godspeed.

TRUEly yours - Joyful CATHOLIC.

Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:11:00 AM

GARRET GRAVES (UNPOSTED AS OF THIS POSTING)
Hi Joyful-
Just a final word from me then, and I will drop it.
I understand the Catholic faith does not teach that you are saved by works- I wasn't saying that. I'm pointing out that you 'do' penance to get grace. Whether you admit it or not, you are getting grace by deeds you do, and I don't do those deeds, so I don't get that grace. But when you do something for something, that is work.

You cannot lose your salvation, Christ promissed that John 6:38-40.
Working out salvation in fear and trembling is not a matter of retention of salvation at all- Christ is not a liar, nor will he be thwarted by the will of man.

On shaky historical ground rests the claim of Peter being the Bishop of Rome. The book of Acts shows that he was sent, not a sender, but sent, on missions, nor did he preside as the leader of the Apostles on the matter of circumcision Acts 15. The first monarchical Bishop to emerge at Rome was some 100-125 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
God bless,
Garret
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

There was a LOT more to be said, but I kept it brief. Here I will address the other points.

Joyful Catholic (JOYC)-The point is, Garrett, whether 33,000 or 100 or 3 we are not ONE as Jesus prayed for to the Father in John 17.

We are one, at least those who are His, regenerate, born from above, who have 'ears to hear,' who are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19-20).

JOYC- I confess :) I did not read the article. I'm not obsessed by the number of denoms so why waste precious time?

Because it is spreading a lie. If you are a Christian, you should not lie- the article reveals the truth on the matter, and the truth should interest you. You are the one who threw out in your first response to me the number 36,000. If you have no interest, please don't use it as an objection.

JOYC- The Catholic Church is not infallible,I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Only the Pope is, WHEN and ONLY when he speaks on matters of faith/morals)

Then the Pope is not infallible, because many times when speaking on matters of faith, they disagree with each other- see the papal syllabus of errors. See also the debate response here, where James White demonstrates that when he was told by Tim Staples that he doesn't understand purgatory (it doesn't fit current Pope Benedict statements on the matter), James White was using the definition used by Pope(s) plural, and quotes those Popes on that particular matter of faith in which they are allegedly infallible!

JOYC-The forgiveness is already given us by the priest - in persona Christi

There is a lot to be said about the legitimacy of the sacerdotal priesthood, but I am not going to touch that aspect for now, other than to say in the new covenant, it is unbiblical. QUESTION- If you don't absolve your sins in this particular way, are you forgiven your sins? If the answer is 'you are not forgiven your sins then' that is a horrible, unbiblical lie, and is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

JOYC- Of course we can't 'earn our salvation' by our good works, but we are not saved by "faith alone" either. James 2:24

Yes, we are saved by faith alone through grace alone- it is a faith that saves, and that has a particular quality, it comes with works (Ephesians 2).
James would agree that to not have works, you have a dead faith, and that faith does not save. Briefly, James 2:14-26 forms one single argument. From verse 14, by the time you get to verse 17, it is already clear that it is not faith versus works that is in question here, but rather a dead faith versus a living faith. The Reformed position has a lot to say by way of careful exegesis of the text itself, and letting James speak for James by showing what he is actually saying in his own argument.

JOYC- The Bible interpreted by you or me alone is why the bible cannot be and is NOT the final authority.

It is the final authority if you hold to sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not applied alone, there is the church structure in the Scriptures, an episcopate over us and guiding us, who are subservient to the only infallible and inerrant word of God, the Scriptures. I am not here going to continue on a 'sola' rant, I do intend to have posts on the subject in the future. In the meantime here is this interesting article to consider.

JOYC-I suggest you get the Catechism of the CC and ask God, in faith, with an open, docile heart to show you the Truth of the CC.

That is what the Mormons told me when they handed me the Book of Mormon! That is not going to work I'm afraid. I can compare the teaching of the Bible to you CC and that is all I need to see the truth of the matter. I will stick with the Apostles, not the RCC.

May God richly bless all of us with His truth, and remember "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" Romans 10:9
Garret

History of the Papacy

2010-02-03T22:19:00.000-08:00

Hi All,
On the subject of the early Papacy and whether the' link' of apostolic succession is valid at its earliest point is this article. It certainly builds a scholarly case for the primitive Roman church as having not a monarchical episcopate, but rather, a plurality (!), and other related issues. Please carefully note the Roman Catholic support for the issue as well ;)Enjoy!

Some apparently unregenerate Popes

2010-01-20T17:13:00.000-08:00

Quoting Philip Schaff in Volume VI of History of the Christian Church (found here online) The character and career of (Pope) Alexander VI afford an argument against the theory of the divine institution and vicarial prerogatives of the papacy which the doubtful exegesis of our Lord’s words to Peter ought not to be allowed to counteract. If we leave out all the wicked popes of the 9th and 10th centuries, forget for a moment the cases of Honorius and other popes charged with heresy, and put aside the offending popes of the Renaissance period and all the bulls which sin against common reason, such as Innocent VIII’s bull against witchcraft, Alexander is enough to forbid that theory.

And from Book IV chap 4 we have this quote-

The political disorder of Europe affected the church and paralyzed its efforts for good. The papacy itself lost all independence and dignity, and became the prey of avarice, violence, and intrigue, a veritable synagogue of Satan. It was dragged through the quagmire of the darkest crimes, and would have perished in utter disgrace had not Providence saved it for better times. Pope followed pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in deposition, prison, and murder. The rich and powerful marquises of Tuscany and the Counts of Tusculum acquired control over the city of Rome and the papacy for more than half a century. And what is worse (incredibile, attamen verum), three bold and energetic women of the highest rank and lowest character, Theodora the elder (the wife or widow of a Roman senator), and her two daughters, Marozia and Theodora, filled the chair of St. Peter with their paramours and bastards. These Roman Amazons combined with the fatal charms of personal beauty and wealth, a rare capacity for intrigue, and a burning lust for power and pleasure. They had the diabolical ambition to surpass their sex as much in boldness and badness as St. Paula and St. Eustachium in the days of Jerome had excelled in virtue and saintliness. They turned the church of St. Peter into a den of robbers, and the residence of his successors into a harem. And they gloried in their shame. Hence this infamous period is called the papal Pornocracy or Hetaerocracy.

Some popes of this period were almost as bad as the worst emperors of heathen Rome, and far less excusable.

Sergius III., the lover of Marozia (904–911), opened the shameful succession. Under the protection of a force of Tuscan soldiers he appeared in Rome, deposed Christopher who had just deposed Leo V., took possession of the papal throne, and soiled it with every vice; but he deserves credit for restoring the venerable church of the Lateran, which had been destroyed by an earthquake in 896 and robbed of invaluable treasures.

My Roman Catholic friends have no qualms about claiming apostolic succession, in spite of problems such as those highlighted above. Apostolic succession is said to be the key to a carefully guarded Apostolic tradition. But what if the chain of succession is not just broken, but VERY broken? Evil, godless men who are clearly not regenerate, i.e. they are not Spirit-filled nor Spirit led- cannot be representatives of Christ on earth, as God has not blessed them with a new heart, they are not born from above. God Almighty is the one who does His work in the heart of the believer. This is called being "born again" or "born from above". Jesus describes this in John Chapter 3, in His discussion with Nicodemus. Paul describes the "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians 5:16-26. Many other passages portray what it means to walk as Christ walked. Take a look at 1 John 2:3-6 for instance-

³We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. ⁴The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ⁵But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: ⁶Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (NIV)

This passage would certainly need to apply to anyone who would claim to be 'Vicar of Christ' on earth. However, just looking at the plain history of many of the Popes who would claim this title for themselves casts a horrible image on Christ, and those Popes prove themselves liars. I cannot say that these men are Apostolic in any sense- neither, it would seem would John, or Paul, nor presumably Peter! That chain that connects one Popes name to another is broken and rendered void of spiritual meaning.

I agree with David T King when he said "..since bishops of Rome embraced and have been condemned for heresy, succession obviously did not guarantee the maintenance of doctrinal purity." In other words folks- the Scriptures alone are the only reliable touchstone to the faith.

The Biblical basis for the Holy Trinity

2010-01-11T23:04:00.000-08:00

I came across this excellent article HERE outlining as complete a case for the Trinity using the text of the Bible alone, as I've ever seen. It is a great resource to quickly go to when about to discuss the Trinity, to clarify the divine personages, and reveal what Gods word teaches about the nature of the Triune God. So, for those non trinitarian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS who will stop by and attempt to refute the doctrine, and the many Christian friends who simply don't get the import of it, let alone why we should believe it, bookmark this or print it out, but definitely go through it- and may God deeply impress on your heart the glory of His true self, the One we adore and worship!

Sovereignty of God

2010-01-05T23:07:00.000-08:00

The Sovereignty of God is a vital topic. We must come to terms with who God is, and how He has revealed Himself, without deferring to an image formed in our minds, or fed to us by other people. Where does Gods sovereignty as revealed in the Bible leave us humans in matters of free will choices that we would make in our lives? Is free will an illusion, with God guiding us and pulling the strings, executing His will above and beyond our own? And how would we know that afterall, unless it was revealed to us.

The Bible does not teach a fatalistic or hard determinism, but rather a soft determinism or compatibilism. One of the best illustrations of this is Isaiah 10. God uses Assyria as his rod of judgment against Israel. Even though God uses Assyria, they prove themselves to have an evil, prideful heart attitude, for which He judges them. In that, we find a portrait of how God guides history, people, individuals and at the same time holds man accountable for his actions. God is King, it is He who controls history, and for His purposes events unfold, whether we understand why or not.

I like how James White put it once "The constant witness of the text of Scripture is not to mans abilities, but to mans INabilities; not to God's limitations, but to God's sovereign power. It is very clear to me anyway, that the presupposition of man is to limit God's power and freedom, and to exalt his own power and freedom." Dividing Line 1/26/2004

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 50:20 (NET)

As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 9:15-16 (NET)

For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with plague, and you would have been destroyed from the earth. But for this purpose I have caused you to stand: to show you my strength, and so that my name may be declared in all the earth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 2:25, 30

'This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, will tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

"But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deuteronomy 29:29 (NET)

Secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those that are revealed belong to us and our descendants forever, so that we might obey all the words of this law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua 11:20 (NET)

for the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel. He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as he had instructed Moses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 7:21 (NET)

For the sake of your promise and according to your purpose you have done this great thing in order to reveal it to your servant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Kings 8:53 (NET)

After all,you picked them out of all the nations of the earth to be your special possession, just as you, O sovereign Lord, announced through your servant Moses when you brought our ancestors out of Egypt.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Kings 19:18 (NET)

I still have left in Israel seven thousand followers who have not bowed their knees to Baal or kissed the images of him.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Kings 20:42 (NET)

The prophet then said to him, “This is what the Lord says, ‘Because you released a man I had determined should die, you will pay with your life and your people will suffer instead of his people.’”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kings 19:25-28 (NET)

Certainly you must have heard!
Long ago I worked it out,
In ancient times I planned it;
and now I am bringing it to pass.
The plan is this:
Fortified cities will crash
into heaps of ruins.
Their residents are powerless,
they are terrified and ashamed.
They are as short-lived as plants in the field,
or green vegetation.
They are as short-lived as grass on the rooftops
when it is scorched by the east wind.
I know where you live,
and everything you do.
Because you rage against me,
and the uproar you create has reached my ears;
I will put my hook in your nose,
and my bridle between your lips,
and I will lead you back the way
you came.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 139:16 (NET)

Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb.
All the days ordained for me
were recorded in your scroll
before one of them came into existence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 16:33 (NET)
The dice are thrown into the lap,
but their every decision is from the Lord.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:24
Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proverbs 21:1 (NET)

The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord like channels of water;
he turns it wherever he wants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 14:24-28 (NET)

The Lord who commands armies makes this solemn vow:
“Be sure of this:
Just as I have intended, so it will be;
just as I have planned, it will happen.
I will break Assyria in my land,
I will trample them underfoot on my hills.
Their yoke will be removed from my people,
the burden will be lifted from their shoulders.
This is the plan I have devised for the whole earth;
my hand is ready to strike all the nations.”
Indeed, the Lord who commands armies has a plan,
and who can possibly frustrate it?
His hand is ready to strike,
and who can possibly stop it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 44:18 (NET)

They do not comprehend or understand,
for their eyes are blind and cannot see;
their minds do not discern.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 46:9-10 (NET)

Remember what I accomplished in antiquity!
Truly I am God, I have no peer;
I am God, and there is none like me,
who announces the end from the beginning
and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred,
who says, ‘My plan will be realized,
I will accomplish what I desire,’

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 63:17 (NET)

Why, Lord, do you make us stray from your ways,
and make our minds stubborn so that we do not obey you?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your inheritance!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel 2:21 (NET)

He changes times and seasons,
deposing some kings
and establishing others.
He gives wisdom to the wise;
he imparts knowledge to those with understanding;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel 4:24-25 (NET)

this is the interpretation, O king! It is the decision of the Most High that this has happened to my lord the king. You will be driven from human society, and you will live with the wild animals. You will be fed grass like oxen, and you will become damp with the dew of the sky. Seven periods of time will pass by for you, before you understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms and gives them to whomever he wishes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel 4:35 (NET)

All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing.
He does as he wishes with the army of heaven
and with those who inhabit the earth.
No one slaps his hand
and says to him, ‘What have you done?’

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel 5:18 (NET)

As for you, O king, the most high God bestowed on your father Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom, greatness, honor, and majesty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel 11:27 (NET)

These two kings, their minds filled with evil intentions, will trade lies with one another at the same table. But it will not succeed, for there is still an end at the appointed time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos 3:6 (NET)

If an alarm sounds in a city, do people not fear?
If disaster overtakes a city, is the Lord not responsible?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 10:29-31 (NET)

Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. Even all the hairs on your head are numbered. So do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 2:23 (NET)

this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 4:27-28 (NET)

“For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 15:17-18 (NET)

so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord,
namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’ says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 9:19 (NET)

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 11:33-36 (NET)

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways!
For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?
Or who has first given to God,
that God needs to repay him?
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 1:11 (NET)

In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 3:9 (NET)

Listen! I am going to make those people from the synagogue of Satan – who say they are Jews yet are not, but are lying – Look, I will make them come and bow down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 4:11 (NET)

You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
since you created all things,
and because of your will they existed and were created!”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 13:7-10 (NET)

The beast was permitted to go to war against the saints and conquer them. He was given ruling authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation, and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.If anyone has an ear, he had better listen!

If anyone is meant for captivity,
into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed by the sword,
then by the sword he must be killed.
This requires steadfast endurance and faith from the saints.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 17:17 (NET)

For God has put into their minds to carry out his purpose by making a decision to give their royal power to the beast until the words of God are fulfilled.

[1] Biblical Studies Press: The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006