"His Holiness"?

[Robert]

As a man under the banner of justification by faith and Christ my righteousness, I find it deplorable that both Catholics and non-Catholics refer to the Roman Catholic Pope as [:"red"]“His Holiness”[/]. Worse still is the fact that the Pope does not refuse such homage.

According to my Bible that places him is state similar to the Pharisees. Paul, as a Pharisee, considered himself “blameless” - but after his conversion we see a different man, one whom would refer to himself as “the worst of sinners” - one whom, in comparison to Christ’s righteousness, referred to himself as a “wretched man”!

Why are Protestants leaders referring to the Pope as Vicar of Christ and His Holiness? What is your opinion?

[jasd]

>>As a man under the banner of justification by faith and Christ my righteousness, I find it deplorable that both Catholics and non-Catholics refer to the Roman Catholic Pope as [:"red"]“His Holiness”[/].<<

Holiness, in its highest sense belongs to Gd. It is, however, applicable

“…to Christians as consecrated to God's service,…” --Easton

I’ve gathered from these forums that justification is often referenced but --is it taught that the Xtian is not sanctified?

The American Heritage Dictionary:

sanc·ti·fy (sàngk¹te-fì´) verb, transitive

sanc·ti·fied, sanc·ti·fy·ing, sanc·ti·fies

1. To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.

2. To make holy; purify.

sanc·ti·ty (sàngk¹tî-tê) noun

plural sanc·ti·ties

1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.

ho·li·ness (ho¹lê-nîs) noun

1. The state or quality of being holy; sanctity.

ho·ly (ho¹lê) adjective

ho·li·er, ho·li·est

3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.

Easton

Saint

one separated from the world and consecrated to God; one holy by profession and by covenant; a believer in Christ

>>Worse still is the fact that the Pope does not refuse such homage.<<

I think where --such as SDAs take offense is in their perception that the Pope is wresting ‘Holiness’ in its highest sense --from Gd; otherwise, it is, also, venerably descriptive of the office devolving to or conferring upon the man. Perhaps, much like POTUS is as much office as it is the person, both deserving respects.

>>…one whom, in comparison to Christ’s righteousness, referred to himself as a “wretched man”!<<

Well, allowing for age and dignity, it is often that --prostration before Christ is the Catholic’s ‘verbalization’ of wretched.

>>Why are Protestants leaders referring to the Pope as Vicar of Christ and His Holiness?<<

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

vicar

1. A substitute in office; a deputy or viceregent

2. Hence, proxy; deputy; as, God’s vicar

One supposes that the church seeks to emulate Joseph and Daniel --but on a more estimable note. Let me add that

would we --signify Christ, as much and as well, as did JPII. This was an extraordinary man of our time and, according to St Paul, shed of his earthly tabernacle, --is with the Lord, in whichever sense one wishes to receive St Paul.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

This was an extraordinary man of our time

---

But he died as sinner. We are only Holy "in Christ"...Sanctification is a process of growth as we rest in Christ. Those who seek to justify themselves will never experience sanctification. That's because the prerequisite to sanctification is justification by faith.

Remember Christ's words?

• "There is none good but one, that is, God"

[jasd]

>>>This was an extraordinary man of our time<<<

>>But he died as sinner.<<

Unless absolved, so do we all, I daresay.

>>We are only Holy "in Christ"<<

So…, justified, sanctified, holy, or otherwise, --was JP II not in Christ? Is it, perhaps, that The American Heritage Dictionary insufficiently defines ‘holy’?

>>...Sanctification is a process of growth as we rest in Christ.<<

That seems to say that there was no sanctification aside or until Christ. Was that the intent of the statement above?

>>Those who seek to justify themselves will never experience sanctification.<<

I suspect that, as maxim, is unsustainable in Writ.

>>That's because the prerequisite to sanctification is justification by faith.<<

Is that sustainable from Writ?

>>Remember Christ's words?

"There is none good but one, that is, God"<<

That may be so; but, I recall using ‘Extraordinary’. That being said,

Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

>>We are only Holy "in Christ"<<

So…, justified, sanctified, holy, or otherwise, --was JP II not in Christ? Is it, perhaps, that The American Heritage Dictionary insufficiently defines ‘holy’?

---

Do you know what it means to be "in Christ"? Please explain....

[jasd]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

>>We are only Holy "in Christ"<<

---

Do you know what it means to be "in Christ"? Please explain....

---

With the aside of a few ancillary amplifications, I’d thought it pretty elementary. However, inasmuch as I perceive you to be reading more into it than might be warranted, and, as it was you that introduced _Holy “in Christ”_ into the dialog, please, I demur,

you take the forward position and expand upon how you think the term ought to be understood. I’ll let you know if it is consonant or if it clashes with my own understanding.

[Robert]

No, I insist you go first....

Thanks anyway,

Rob

[jasd]

Protocol, my good man, let us stand upon protocol.

Insinuating distinctions regard the question of being _in Christ_ is being made by you, not I. ;-)

[Robert]

See the post:

"Will the real gospel please stand up!"

[jasd]

Gospel/Godspel

There is no one good news. The compendium of Holy Writ affirms the redemption of the elect entailing aspects in the telling.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

“We”, whoever we are, were “in him” before the foundation of the world was laid. The “Gospel” was given to the hearing of man in Eden. It was hidden and it was proclaimed. It is promises and it is fulfillment. It is fulfillment and it is ongoing. The gospel is Christ per se, and ‘we’ are chosen in Him.

Faith: Defining the predicating noun

How are we in Him? That is the question. By faith? What, is faith? or should one ask, what kind of faith? Faith of certitude, of conviction, of hope, --ours, another’s; or is it the Catholic faith of credence? What is the faith that regenerates, that justifies, that sanctifies, that saves? Is it living? or dead? …

Even to undertake to develop that undefined ‘faith’ ‘needed’ to be ‘in Christ’ might be considered 'works' on our part, if we had not otherwise been chosen ‘in him’ --by and through grace and favor, before the foundation of the world.

One really cannot obtain to anything other than a subjective credo regards sanctification by faith… because faith is indeterminate; it is subjective. It is the HS impressing upon the individual heart, be it the pagan heart, the Catholic brother’s heart, the Jehovah’s Witness sister’s heart, the Saturday worshipper, Sunday worshipper, Monday, sunset-sunrise, midnight to midnight, season to season-whatever-worshipper, etc;

Job 1:4 And his sons went and feasted [in their] houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. v5 And it was so, when the days of [their] feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings [according] to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

In the case of perfect and upright Job and his children, --sanctification seems to have obtained not only by and through works but also by --bestowal --from a second party.

Unless and until one settles the canonicity of the Epistle St James in the negative, one is forced to deal with the seeming discrepancy between the Pauline and the Jamesian texts. If one opts for St Paul, one also has to deal with very troubling aspects of his writing. If one accepts both St Paul and St James, they must be made to harmonize. St Paul presents faith as an open-face peanut butter and jelly sandwich (if you will ;-) with St James saying, “Here is the other slice of bread, make a proper sandwich of it before everything gets smeared.”

Adding weight to measure, St Paul then employs the rather odd examples of the faith of the fathers and mothers, which some, incorporate works wedded to a faith. Noah built the ark, Abraham went up the mountain, Rahab toiled with rope and thread, etc…

Accepting the Epistle of St James as deservedly canonical compels one to temporize the ‘faith thema’ of St Paul, as it would then have to be more than the intrinsic little motif presented in the Pauline texts --to harmonize with St James. None of this before and after construction of --first faith, then works, either.

Re: The Pharisee, the Publican, and justification…

Lu 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. …

They both went up, as did Abraham…, and they both prayed. We cannot rightfully characterize their faith, as they shared a common economy; yet textually, we can characterize the character of how they viewed themselves before Gd. Only the one was justified, made righteous --by grace, by favor --apart from the law. Yet, it was the law, which moved them to go up to the Temple, --where, as we read: Jesus declared the Publican, justified.

Justification by abjectness…, that’s consolatory, --the thief-on-the-cross (in thine remembering, have mercy on me…) justification, and being justified, sanctified;

in Christ.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us

in him

before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

“We”, whoever we are, were “in him” before the foundation of the world was laid.

---

Wrong....We were not "in Him" at the foundation of the world, rather we were "in Adam". What Paul is saying is that God decided to save us "in Christ". The "us" is all mankind and not some limited elect....

The gospel was set in action when Christ united His deity with our fallen humanity at the incarnation. The life He assumed was our corporate life...the life all of us share with father Adam.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

How are we in Him? That is the question. By faith?

---

We have a new, glorified life in the heavenly places right this very minute! That life is our corporate humanity cleansed....

On current life comes from fallen Adam....So by faith we have accepted our new position "in Christ"....We receive that new life at the resurrection IF we maintain faith in Christ's righteousness....

[Dr. Shane]

Yes it has rubbed me the wrong way when I have heard protestant leaders refer to pope John Paul II as the holy father or his holiness. I refer to him as the pope. I di give Catholic priest the respect of address them as father so-&-so.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have no problem calling anyone "father" who claims to be one.

[jasd]

>>Wrong....We were not "in Him" at the foundation of the world, rather we were "in Adam".<<

…in the matter of my doctrinaire opines:

Regardless, …the clause incorporating ‘in Adam’ (Cor 15:22), there is a noticeable absence of Adam either in presence or view --in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Forgive my saying so,

but given that and notwithstanding the Corinthian letter, I am forced to conclude that the purport that any part of Ephesians speaks to a corporate embodiment “in Adam” is a constructive derivative.

Note:

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him {#846} before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him {#846} in love:

846 autos ow-tos'

from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, …

(I have bolded autos in the above Strong’s. It is self-explanatory.

Please, considering what I’ve put forward,

persuade me otherwise.

>>The gospel was set in action when Christ united His deity with our fallen humanity at the incarnation. The life He assumed was our corporate life...the life all of us share with father Adam.<<

That may be, but what of Ephesians 1:4 in light of #846 autos?

>>What Paul is saying is that God decided to save us "in Christ". The "us" is all mankind and not some limited elect....<<

There is exegesis to the contrary.

[jasd]

>>>How are we in Him? That is the question. By faith?<<

>>So by faith… IF we maintain faith…<< [ed.]

>>>Faith: Defining the predicating noun

How are we in Him? … or is it the Catholic faith of credence?<<< [ed.]

Is a faith of credence more or less acceptable to Gd? than mine? than yours? another’s? Unless one concludes upon forgone caprice, one cannot construe upon arbitrary posits of ‘faith’ as is presently being used in these certain threads.

What is faith?

[jasd]

>>Yes it has rubbed me the wrong way when I have heard protestant leaders refer to pope John Paul II as the holy father…<<

One can see your unease given…

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

I haven't parsed what, exactly, Christ meant --regards that text, so ...can't really comment upon it myself.

There is much in the RC .Org that does not adhere to scripture. There is much in all religious .Orgs that do not, likewise, adhere to scripture. …mote? …beam?

>>…or his holiness.<<

Redux:

ho·li·ness (ho¹lê-nîs) noun

1. The state or quality of being holy; sanctity.

ho·ly (ho¹lê) adjective

ho·li·er, ho·li·est

3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person

The NT ‘saint’ derives from #40 hagios …:--(most) holy…

Is it not within linguistic or vernacular use to address [one] your/his ‘holiness’, rather that your/his ‘holy’?

“Your holy.” “His holy.” They are awkward and incorrect in the extreme. “…honour to whom honour…”

It is fair to ascertain that JP II did ‘live according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system’. To adjudge otherwise is to --well, judge the heart of him. I don’t know about you but

I cannot judge the heart of JP II. He was Gd’s servant.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

It is fair to ascertain that JP II did ‘live according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system’. To adjudge otherwise is to --well, judge the heart of him. I don’t know about you but

I cannot judge the heart of JP II. He was God’s servant.

---

There's no judging here at all....The fact is (according to the Bible itself) is that He is still a sinner falling short of the glory of God...i.e., His unconditional agape love.

• Ecc 7:20 Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins...

  Matt 19:17 there is none good but one, that is, God

  Rom 3:9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one

  1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves

If the Pope claims holiness (and he does) then he is deceived (and he was)....Those who follow him by calling him Your Holiness are also deceived.

Jesus is the standard of righteousness....The Pope nor anyone else is measuring up to that standard. As Paul states, we fall short of God's love.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

• >>What Paul is saying is that God decided to save us "in Christ". The "us" is all mankind and not some limited elect....<<
  There is exegesis to the contrary.

---

That's the heresy of limited atonement....The Bible does not teach that....

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

[jasd]

>>>It is fair to ascertain that JP II did ‘live according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system’. To adjudge otherwise is to --well, judge the heart of him. I don’t know about you but

I cannot judge the heart of JP II. He was God’s servant.<<< [ed.]

>>There's no judging here at all....The fact is (according to the Bible itself) is that He is still a sinner >>falling short of the glory of God...i.e., His unconditional agape love. [ed.]

>>

>>“There is no one righteous, not even one

>>

>>1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves

>>

>>If the Pope claims holiness (and he does) then he is deceived (and he was)....Those who follow him by calling him Your Holiness are also deceived.<< [ed.]

Perhaps, (leaving aside the aid of dictionaries) I failed to note that it is not the NT saints only but also, the HS that are called hagios, --that is, --holy. 'hagios' is broadly applicable. I can hardly see where Strong’s translation of hagios, as ceremonially consecrated, cannot nor should not --be said of the pope. I believe

the .Org with which you seem to be affiliated, also, ceremonially sets apart person(s) --as consecrated, does it not? Does it not also consecrate inanimate objects and things? It may be that

you’ve misread me; because nowhere, had I advanced or advocated that the pope was sinless. It may be that sinlessness and holiness can and often do diverge in and by definition.

>>Jesus is the standard of righteousness....The Pope nor anyone else is measuring up to that standard. As Paul states,…<<

Indubitably. Repeatedly, JP II manifested that in word and deed. I daresay, that none too many of us might say the same. If we believe that Christ’s righteousness provides the robe, which covereth our shortfalls, how/where ever do we come up or find the dogmas to sustain doctrines persuading ourselves that --that same robe is too short to cover also, --the pope? that Gd is too cast-eyed so as His hand is not only too short but that, moreover, it is misdirected --where the pope is concerned?

I know there is an awful lot of ‘theology’ invested in the eschatology of Rome. That’s a form of Protest… and is understandable. No excuses are needed for declamations from one’s point of view. Catholicism is a valid and legitimate subject and/or object of/for those views… However, I would only encourage that should one lay the kind of charges percolating against fellow believers in Christ’s body, he or she does so with care and exceeding attention. That is not to deny

the errors of the Church.

>>Jesus is the standard of righteousness....The Pope nor anyone else is measuring up to that standard. As Paul states, we fall short of God's love.<< [ed.]

>>…we fall short of God's love.<<

I missed the thrust of that last clause. Is it meant to say that JP II was not in Gd’s grace?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

If we believe that Christ’s righteousness provides the robe, which covereth our shortfalls, how/where ever do we come up or find the dogmas to sustain doctrines persuading ourselves that --that same robe is too short to cover also, --the pope? that Gd is too cast-eyed so as His hand is not only too short but that, moreover, it is misdirected --where the pope is concerned?

---

The Papacy (with the Pope as the visible head) teaches salvation partially by grace and partially by works. It is part of a world system called Babylon. It is a system of legalism that denies justification by faith alone....Legalism will eventually cause one to fall from grace....

[jasd]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is exegesis to the contrary.

---

That's the heresy of limited atonement....The Bible does not teach that....

---

Nevertheless, “There is exegesis to the contrary.” And, speaking of atonement…, how limitlessly might you be willing to assign its encompassment?

It may be that the things of Genesis 6 (“and also after that,…”) and of 1 Peter 3-4 might lend itself to reasons (that is, without recourse to common orthodoxy) why a cluster of grapes in old Canaanland took two men to carry it upon a staff; why there was there the presence of Anakim; why Jesus referred to Samaritans as dogs and why certain passages of the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud {Bavli } being of choice, as authoritative, rather than the Palestinian {Yerushalmi}) [still] refer to the goyim in [similar] language; and what might Calvin have discovered in Writ (much of which he developed from parsing St Paul, his very self) --to develop his dogmas and to explain --how he may have been able to excuse his excessive disdain* and cruelty…

That is something, which I seriously doubt will be dwelt upon, --and I am not so inclined.

(an aside to 1 Peter 3-4: Does one suppose that any aspect of the atonement is to be found alluded-to in its passages? perhaps, its very type?)

>>Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.<<

Given that St Paul often recoursed to the OT, one might review the OT concept of the inclusive ‘all’, per example, how ‘all’ is used in Daniel 2. It might be interesting (--given the assumption that the peoples of the Levant were horticulturally aware) --to dwell upon how those receiving St Paul’s epistle on wild branches and such might have pondered his use of the then science of grafting… perhaps, even its aspects of graft-hybridization, if you will…

“About 350 years ago a shipload of travelers landed on the northeast coast of America. The first year they established a town site.

The next year they elected a town government.

The third year the town government planned to build a road five miles westward into the wilderness.

In the fourth year the people tried to impeach their town government because they thought it was a waste of public funds to build a road five miles westward into a wilderness.

Who needed to go there anyway?

Here were people who had the vision to see three thousand miles across an ocean and overcome great obstacles to get there. But in just a few years they were not able to see even five miles out of town. They had lost their pioneering vision.” [ed.]

*there is none here --of that sort of Calvinism regards other .Orgs and their relationship to ‘truth’, is there?

[jasd]

>>The Papacy (with the Pope as the visible head) teaches salvation partially by grace and partially by works.<<

As do St James and St Paul together… unless their compendium is wrested by a sort of modern modality… Anyway, are you purporting that salvation remained unattainable for the Xtian community for the past what? 1-2 millennia? because of doctrinal error?

>>It is part of a world system called Babylon.<< [ed.]

As are all .Orgs currently; or is it your position that ‘Gd’s people’ are not currently in a so-called Babylon?

>>It is a system of legalism that denies justification by faith alone....Legalism will eventually cause one to fall from grace....<<

There are cleansing, regeneration, justification, sanctification, redemption, ours, yours, mine, others, this faith, that faith, …and more. Does legalism begin to make its presence felt in litany? not even by inference, latency, inflection, allusion… etc?

>>Legalism will eventually cause one to fall from grace....<<

As might any one of seven deadly sins in any of their aspects or forms…

[Robert]

Quote:

---

>>The Papacy (with the Pope as the visible head) teaches salvation partially by grace and partially by works.<<

As do St James and St Paul together… unless their compendium is wrested by a sort of modern modality…

---

No, you are wrong! If you understood the gospel you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.

Quote:

---

Anyway, are you purporting that salvation remained unattainable for the Xtian community for the past what? 1-2 millennia? because of doctrinal error?

---

I am telling you that legalism will cause one to fall from grace, period!!!

• Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

  2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is exegesis to the contrary.

---

That's the heresy of limited atonement....The Bible does not teach that....

---

Nevertheless, “There is exegesis to the contrary.”

---

A perverted exegesis! If God only saved the "elect" then how does one know if he is part of that group?

The fact is that God saved "all men" in Jesus Christ. What men decide to do with that salvation is another issue.

• 1 Tim 4:9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.