Oh come off it!
Europe may be the dying continent, but the Reformation had nothing to do with it.
Posted on 03/15/2013 7:32:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
That says that scripture is adequate.
Timothy is also exhorted to ‘pass on the traditions that have handed down to you’.
Do you believe that Timothy was taught by a written NT?
*rme*
You really don't understand Catholicism very well if you think it means being faithful to a Pope who preaches heresy.
A Pope who attempts to formally impose an heretical opinion like that would cease to be the Pope, and a substantial number of the Catholic faithful would recognize that and probably move to elect a real Pope.
The Greek explained what it said.
Like I said, JC, I’m not going to debate you. Have a blessed afternoon.
And both of those Greek adjectives modify "man of God," not "scriptures". The preceding verse makes it clear that Paul had in mind the Tanakh, since those are the only Scriptures Timothy could have known since his infancy.
If a tradition contradicts SCripture it is not to be adhered to. It doesn’t work the other way around.
Nonsense. If that were possible, it would have happened in 1968.
Let me lay the groundwork. First, in 1930, the Lambeth Conference (Anglican) became the first Christian church in the world to break with a 20 century consensus, and endorse contracepted sex acts. Then, a generation later, by 1968, all the elites -- religious, academic, government, medical, cultural, everyone --- including many Catholic bishops and cardinals --- had OK'd this form of unnatural sex as well. Hell, the majority of the Papally-appointed study commission - had endorsed birth control.
It's hard at this point, 45 years later, to remember the name of anybody, anybody at all who was against unnatural contracepted sex by 1968. It was taken to be as harmless as penicillin, soap and sliced bread.
It was then that Pope Paul VI published Humanae Vitae, reiterating the ages-old Bible-consistent stand in defense of natural, procreative sex. Nobody else then, and almost nobody now, is prepared to defend God's design for sex as natural, marital and as procreative.
It as then that the banners should have blazoned against the sky these noble words: "Habemus Papam."
You say "The idea that the Holy Spirit would never let that happen is pure superstition."
Really? Re-read the above. I've got proof.
"And if a future Pope embraces, say, Homosexual marriage what can the faithful do but accept and embrace it too."
There’s a word for this that has 8 letters and sounds like a fresh steaming ready-made organic fertilizer product, but it’s a word I don’t want to use on Free Republic.
That's give-or-take a few: these timelines are apaproximate.
So all of the Canonical NT books after 2 Timothy--- were they extraneous? --- since, as you interpret it, the existent canon of Scripture at that time, was "complete" and "finished"?
And how is it that Peter and Paul both instructed the Churches to imitate them (their actions) and to hold onto what they taught (their words), both as preached (spoken tradition )and as written (books, letters and sermons)?
Are you suggesting it should be easy to repent of open, grave and oft-repeated sin?
Not easy, but a person can come to repentance.
Oh come off it!
Europe may be the dying continent, but the Reformation had nothing to do with it.
I'd say it started with the French Revolution and the Paris Commune.
Indeed.
What you say is true-—NT canon wasn’t complete at that time. But remember, they were writing for posterity, and inspired by God. He knew what the final result would be.
You make a good point: that Paul's letters to Timothy were written to be true also in the light of the future, because God sees the future. True.
But you've proved perhaps rather more than you wanted to prove...
... because you've got the Holy Spirit and Paul accepting the whole Bible! which would mean the whole Septuagint as was current in the first-century AD. The LXX was the translation and OT canon used by the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean basin, even in Galilee, and including Paul's communities.
You do know that 75 - 80% of the time when the NT writers quote the OT, they are quoting the Septuagint translation verbatim.
Obviously, somebody's got to discern, decide, acknolwedge and/or confirm the canon, because without an orthodox canon you don't know what the Bible is.
So, since I do think God knows the result, I think that makes a strong case for the full 73-book Catholic Orthodox Bible, which was the Bible of all Christians --- Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopians, even the so-called Nestorians --- until the 16th century.
Not blaming you, but at other times on this forum I have asked just who it was who decided to de-canonize 7 books of the canon (seriously, I was looking for names). Nobody could give me even a wiki cut-and-paste.
So, carry on! And a good night to you, friend. ZZZZZZ. ;o)
Good night to you, too, and God bless.
But I was the one who DIDN’T want to get into it, remember?
I answered your question. But I won’t be dragged into the Protestant/Catholic debate threads.
We have our convictions, and neither will likely change the other’s mind. We’ll be able to talk it over in Heaven one day, but it won’t matter then.
In friendship,
CoA
I wish Pope Francis could spend 5 minutes with Pelosi and Biden. I’ll bet both would be looking for other denominations quickly:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.