I note, first of all, that you have completely ignored my further criticism of your covenantal paradigm whereby you justify the papacy.
The only thing that is worthy of eternal hell is not being reconciled to God through the death of Christ. Hell is not a place. It is a state of being. People talk about hell as if it is a place separate from God.
Tell me, WHERE is it in the universe that God is not? Is there any such place where God does not reside, does not fill it all? Not according to the Psalmist.
The issue has been most thoroughly addressed in the thread, "Some meat for the dogs . . .". God is most assuredly present in hell, not as a loving Father to those perishing, but rather as a wrathful Judge.
Stealing a loaf of bread if you are hungry is not the same as aborting a baby because you are a wanton fornicator. The former is not worthy of hell as is the latter.
One would think you'd be more familiar with the Epistle of James, which Catholics so gleefully use to, as they think, tear apart the holy doctrine of justification by faith alone. Here's what James wrote: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one [point], he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10). What does this mean for Catholics who want to deny that eternal death comes upon all sinners, from the greatest to the least?
Of course we can, and moreso than any Protestant can. There is simply NO EVIDENCE that suggests that Reformed doctrines existed in the first, second, third.....etc. centuries. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the interpretation of our Lord's words in scripture were understood in an extremely Catholic manner.
[. . .]
This is ridiculous. Polycarp was trained by Apostle John. The very first generation after the apostles shows a distinctly Catholic understanding of our Lord's words. From WHOM but the apostles would they have learned this.
Yes, of course there is ample evidence—as interpreted in accordance to Catholic tradition, how couldn't there be? But let us look at
Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, and see what might be found there:
"'In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;' into which joy many desire to enter,
knowing that 'by grace ye are saved, not of works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
What's that? Salvation by GRACE by the WILL OF GOD and not of works? No, definitely not teaching that fits the Reformed paradigm.
"For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive.
And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour,
'is the mother of us all.'"
What's that? An exhortation to the Philippians to
study Paul's letter to find the means of being built up in that faith which is the mother of us all? But isn't it the Pope who infallibly interprets for us? Why then are the Philippians exhorted to study the Scripture?
"
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, 'Be ye angry, and sin not,' and, 'Let not the sun go down upon your wrath' [Eph. 4:26]."
They are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, having nothing hid from them! They are well versed, in fact, in Scripture which had not yet been infallibly determined to be Scripture by any Catholic council! How, then, does Polycarp know that the Epistle to the Ephesians is Sacred Scripture?
And, really, I need not mention that Peter is nowhere mentioned by name in Polycarp's epistle, nor is the bishop of Rome's authority appealed to, nor is there any mention of the government of the church except for presbyters and deacons.
Now I ask you, is the Holy Spirit capable of guiding all believers into all truth without bestowing infallibility upon any of them?
As I have said before, from the evidence of the MULTITUDES of interpretations of the Bible outside of Catholicism, the answer is OBVIOUSLY NOT
You may want to rethink your statement, there.
Furthermore, you have no scriptural proofs that show that individuals have the right to private interpretation over and above the judgment of the Church.
Which "church," Ed? The Church which is ruled over by the Pope in contradiction to the proclamation of Scripture regarding who is our High Priest?
While it is true that the Holy Spirit can open a person's eyes to see his need of the Savior and point out that Savior in scripture, to think that individuals -- especially those who are unlearned -- can come up with a correct understanding of the deep and difficult doctrines of scripture on their own is just patently false.
2 Peter 3:16 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.
I have professed no such thing. I understand the church as a BODY, a COMMUNITY of professing believers, and we approach the Scriptures from within that community. Thus the Reformers themselves also read the Church Fathers. Obviously, however, individuals are going to have to approach the Scriptures if they are to know what the Scriptures say, aside from any interpretation of "deep and difficult doctrines." Still, you're only pushing the question back another step. Can you infallibly interpret sacred tradition? Why are there differing opinions WITHIN the Catholic Church regarding the meaning and primacy of sacred tradition?
Heretical bishop Arias didn't think so. It is recorded, in fact, that the sum of his whole argument came from scripture. Perhaps it is not as clear in scripture as you would like to believe.
No, it's clear enough, given two things in particular: 1) the constant witness to the existence of but one true God in Scripture; and 2) Scripture's witness to the divine nature of all three Persons. Arius was deceived. Athanasius rightly responded to the Arian heresy from Scripture; see, for example, his
To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch. 2, sec. 13, 14, 15, 17.
