“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”

pontifications ^ | 02-08-06 | Johann Adam Möhler

[jecIIny]

This is a Catholic perpesctive. But it makes some good points. I would refer readers to the source for some interesting comments from readers at Al Kimel's web site. And now I will crawl into my bomb shelter and await the counter battery fire. :-)

[jecIIny]

ping

[RnMomof7]

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[redgolum]

Just had to continue the flame war again, didn't you! :)

[Clay+Iron_Times]

And ALL to the ROMANS from the book of Romans written by Paul, isn't that something.

[RnMomof7]

The irony is not lost on me. It was after all Paul that catechized the Romans

[jjm2111]

ping for later. I grew up RC but became born again while on deployment. I work in NYC and would appreciate if anyone knew of some Bible studies or fellowship in Manhattan during the week, I would appreciate it.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

The irony is not lost on me. It was after all Paul that catechized the Romans

Very true, what do you see was the cause to deviate? And was it all at once, or a gradual slippage over time? Or was it ever right to begin with. Did the Apostles sense something wrong already at work in Rome?

[Clay+Iron_Times]

I forgot to ask...Where was Peter when this Epistle to the Romans was written?

[RnMomof7]

I believe they were a mission church without headship, as were many of the new churches. So as in all the epistles Paul used them to teach doctrine to the babes in Christ in Rome and then that letter circulated through all the churches and to us today. Yes it is still teaching sound doctrine to babes in Christ today :)

[RnMomof7]

I forgot to ask...Where was Peter when this Epistle to the Romans was written?

He was the apostle" to the circumcision", scripture indicates he was in Babylon, which at that time was a hub of Jewish intellectuals and had a large Jewish population.

One thing we know for sure is he was not in Rome as he is not addressed in the letter .

[Clay+Iron_Times]

as were many of the new churches

Then Paul did not recognize a church in Rome in that letter

That would explain why Paul does not address "To the Church at Rome" like say: To the Church at Corinth, or the Church at Thessalonica, or the Church at Ephesus

[x5452]

Some other verses sola scriptura folk might want to keep in mind:

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.


1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.


1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.


1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.


1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

1Cr 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.


1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.


1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?


1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

[bremenboy]

The doctrine of "church infallibility" was developed in the apostate church or the system now known as Catholicism as a matter of necessity. Having departed from scriptural ground for its doctrine and practice and therefore being unable to justify such by the scriptures, it became necessary to substitute one standard for another in order to satisfy the minds of those who might be interested enough to question any matter. What better way could this be done than by convincing its gullible adherents that what the church does is unquestionably right, that it is infallible in its every decision and hence needs no Bible proof for anything? As a result of this concept which has been adhered to for centuries, Catholics scoff at any attempt to question them on the basis of the teaching of the scriptures. They have lost all respect for God's word because this standard was discarded for another.
THE TESTIMONY OF PAPAL CONTRADICTIONS.
· Victor (192 ) first approved of Montanism, then condemned it.
· Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. He entered the temple of Vesta and offered incense to the goddess.
C. Liberius (358) demnation profession o be recalled in his see.
D. Honorius (625) adhered to Monothelitism.
E. Gregory I calls any one antichrist who takes the name of Universal Bishop, and contrarywise Boniface III made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him.
F. Paschal II (1088-99) and Eugenius III (1145-53 ) authorized duelling. Julius II (1909 ) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it.
G. Eugenius IV (1432-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia. Pius II (1458) revoked the concession.
H. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid. Pius VII (180023 ) condemned them.
· Sixtus V (1585-90) published an edition of the Bible, and by a bull recommended it to be read. Pius VII condemned the reading of it.
J. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits, permitted by Paul III, and Pius VII re-established it.
K. Strossmayer speaking, says: "But why look for such remote proofs? Has not our holy Father here present, in his bull which gave the rules for this this Council, in the event of his dying while it was sitting, revoked all that in past times may be contrary to it, even when that proceeds from the decisions of his predecessors?"
L. Stephen XI caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed and dressed in pontifical robes. He had his fingers cut off which had been used for giving the benediction, and then had his body thrown into the Tiber, declaring him to be a perjurer and illegitimate. Romanus, successor to Stephen, and after him, John X, rehabilitated the memory of Formosus.
(Strossmayer mentions the wickedness in the lives of various popes, mentioning John XI (931), John XII (956), Alexander VI).
· John XXIII (1410) because of simony and immorality was deposed by Ecumenical Council of Constance. "Some will maintain that this Council was only a private one; let it be so; but if you refuse any authority to it, as a logical sequence you must hold the nomination of Martin V (1417 ) to be illegal. What, then, will become of the papal succession? Can you find the thread of it?" (Strossmayer).

[topcat54]

He was the apostle" to the circumcision", scripture indicates he was in Babylon, which at that time was a hub of Jewish intellectuals and had a large Jewish population.

There are some who take Peter's reference to "Babylon" in his letter as a reference to Jerusalem itself. Part of the reason is the view that Jerusalem/Judaism had slipped into apostasy, was persecuting the early church, and, by denying the Messiah was committing spiritual harlotry. Thus the words in Revelation:

"And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.'" (Rev. 14:8)

Earlier in Revelation we read: "And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev. 11:8)

Jesus was crucified by Jerusalem. But it apparently had come to be known spiritually by the name of a number pagan cites.

Also, later in Revlation we read by way of comparison:

"And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," (Rev. 21:10)

Much of Revelation seems to be about the old Jerusalem vs. the new Jerusalem, the harlot vs. the chaste bride.

I'm not sure there is any evidence to place Peter in literal Babylon.

[KC Burke]

For another interesting Item to read and reflect upon, I suggest a short view of Thomas Oden, an evangelical scholar, who would bring all the orthodox views together, whether Catholic orthodox, evangelical orthodox or any tradional view of chistianity. He has a great book out call The Rebirth of Ortodoxy but a short summary of some of his views is HERE

[bornacatholic]

The doctrine of "church infallibility" was developed in the apostate church or the system now known as Catholicism as a matter of necessity.

* Don't discount the motivation of filthy lucre. We Catholics have made scads of dough selling Denzinger texts.

[PleaseNoMore]

I have remained silent simply reading the threads on this subject but I must ask, "Who is this author to say 'he who grounds his faith on scripture only has no faith'?"

I base my faith upon the Word of God. Does this man know the heart of man that he can make these claims? The word of God is all sufficient for sustaining one's faith. For any person to say it's not enough is borderline blasphemy, IMO.

[DX10]

"Don't discount the motivation of filthy lucre.."

That one brought a belly laugh.

As I said before, we have no basis of agreement between those of us who rely on the Bible as our authority and those who rely on 1)Pope, 2)Catholic Church, and 3)Bible in that order.

Comparing the operation of the Catholic Church with the Bible is of no profit unless the Catholic would agree to abide by the Bible teaching. Ain't likely.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

Comparing the operation of the Catholic Church with the Bible is of no profit unless the Catholic would agree to abide by the Bible teaching. Ain't likely.

What are some of the things which a Bible-believing Christian must keep in mind, in the presence of an unchanging yet constantly changing, Roman Catholic Church?

First, we must remember that the sole basis of truth for the Roman Catholic church is not, has never been, and can never be, SOLA SCRIPTURA (only scripture), the inspired, infallible Word of God written. Truth is what the Church declares truth to be. St Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospel if I were not brought to do so by the authority of the Catholic church."

Second, we must remember that according to Rome, not only truth, but also salvation is mediated through the church. Only the Pope has authority to remit or retain sin, which he transmits to bishops and these to priest, and dispenses by means of the sacraments. The Roman Catholic church has not ever taught, does not now teach, and can never teach, that man is saved by SOLA GRATIA (grace alone) apart from his own works or merits.

Third, we must remember that the Roman Catholic church has never taught, does not now teach, and can never teach, that the only response on the part of sinful man which God has decreed to be the method of man's entrance into grace, is SOLA FIDE (faith alone).

William C. Standridge