| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/20/2007 5:42:51 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread does not qualify for Caucus status and you’re using it to make personal attacks. Enough. |
Posted on 08/20/2007 2:38:07 PM PDT by pjr12345
BZZZZZZZT.
Try again.
In other words, act like the Bible fell from the sky yesterday, complete with an engraved invitation to reverse-engineer Your Very Own Real Christian Church [tm] using whatever YOPIOS happens to "work for you"?
IOW, we're supposed to ignore the fact that Jesus founded a real, historical, visible Christian community, and start with the completely un-historic and un-Biblical idea that he threw a book at us and told us to figure it out for ourselves.
pjr12345, history is part of reality. Discussions whose ground-rules demand that they ignore important parts of reality are, well, not real.
2 Peter 2:22
In other words, act like the Bible fell from the sky yesterday ...Not to put too fine a point on it, but the King James Version was first published in 1611 ...
I believe that we can do it Scripturally, even using the KJV. They weren't able to take out all the typographical evidence, they weren't that intelligent.
I won't respond to this poster though, he came on FR with an agenda, to prove the Catholic Church a fallacy. I refuse to throw my pearls before the swine but I'm having a little fun.
Consider the following passages:
Matthew 23:9 -- Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
1Corinthians 1:12-13 -- 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
James 15 (The Council of Jerusalem)
Galatians 2:11... -- 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
1Timothy 2:5 -- For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Hebrews 2:17 -- Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
1Peter 5:1-4 -- 1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.
These are but a few verses that shed light on Peter's position in the Church. There are many others.
The fact is that other than the single occurrence of Matthew 16:18 - the verse of contested meaning - there is no support for Peter having a supreme leadership position in the early church. While his standing, position, and apostolic authority were real, he was not the first "pope".
The weight of Scripture belies the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. The infallibility of Scripture requires its rejection.
Too fine a point?
Your point is dull by at least a dozen centuries.
Notice how the original poster is MIA, LOL. Do suppose he got in over his head?
The premise, however, is fundamentally flawed, because it reduces the discussion to proof-texts. Catholics can only quote their favored proof-texts, Protestants theirs, and we are forced to agree to disagree. Doctrine is not determined solely by proof-texts, however, but through the teaching of the Church. We have no right to ignore the Magisterium of the Church. (As a Presbyterian, I recognize the existence of a Magisterial role of the Church - but would maintain that it is not infallible. Just very, very persuasive.)
You are free to do as you please (Calvin's foolishness notwithstanding).
Oops, spoke too soon.
Its that darned dogs/vomit thing.
It is fallacious to find doctrinal support from a document carefully crafted to insure the passages included support the intended doctrine.
I find it amazing that so many find the use of Scripture so threatening.
What is the big deal about using only Scripture for this debate? You have your extra-biblical authorities to comfort you. If it’s not in the Bible, then it will likely be in your other authorities, and therefore will be valid to you.
I see no legitimate reason for your (and other’s) continued hostility to the idea of restricting debate to Scripture.
Use of Scripture is fine. Your misuse of it (and Calvin's and Luther's) is dangerous.
The dizzingly-redundant irony of that suggestion is that there is no biblical support for using only Scripture. It's an arbitrary rule invented by strange misguided men.
I think the climate of religious discussion on FR is so tense that your gaol is unattainable. That's a shame for all of us.
But do please think what your structures look like to us. You want to use a Protestant translation of what the Protestants think of as the canonical books. Can you see why that would suggest that you're stacking the deck?
Also, there is another problem: To illustrate it consider the first verses of Hebrews The part where he starts quoting. Then look at how Jesus uses "The Lord said to my Lord" to confound his antagonists.
Then ask yourself just what exactly "proving from Scripture" means? How shall we ask that question, especially considering the way Paul and Jesus use Scripture?
When I read our talk of seeing Mary in the Ark of the Covenant and in the woman crowned with twelve stars I think what looks like a scienterrific exercise with Scripture as the prime data set is not going to produce the desired result with the desired degree of certainty.
And that's why, to hide our pain at our sad divisions, we roll on the floor laughing.
I did not specify a translation, only suggested one. While I did restrict the Biblical books to the 66 accepted by Protestants, those same books are also accepted by Catholics, and represent the “least common denominator”.
It is worthwhile to again point out that restricting the discussion to Scripture in no way harms Catholics. They accept and rely on their extra-biblical authorities. Therefore anything that comes out of this discussion that is insupportable by Scripture will surely be covered by their other authorities.
As a convert, I have never felt the need to discredit and try to defame the denomination I came from because I realise that I gained a lot from them on my journey to the fullness of the truth. Most converts from other faiths feel the same way but it seems that the journey away from the CC leads to discord and a deep impetus to prove the CC wrong.
One thing that they do leave out is faith, and while they tout the indwelling of the HS, they don't seem to understand that before the dissemination of the Bible in book form the people had to have faith in the truth of the CC who taught the truth of God. It wasn't until it fell into everyman's hands that the Word was corrupted to conform to what everyman wanted to believe.
The reality is, if there is Truth, there is but one Truth or it isn't Truth. They may want to lean on their own understanding but as for me, I choose the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded and that is led by the Holy Spirit.
I will take your advice and heed the Scripture.
No you're not.
By Scripture I mean the 69 non-apocryphal books. Please don't clutter up the thread with a debate about the origination of Scripture, its content, caretakers, or source. If you have any doubts about what Scripture is, then use the New King James Version and save your comments for another thread.
ROFL!!!
From Genesis to Revelation (regardless of which version of the Bible you are reading), Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura. In Matt. 28:20 it states: "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This again disproves "Bible alone" theology.
Furthermore, in Mark 16:15, Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.
This thread is intended to be a "slap on the back" "high five" to those who fear the Truth! If anything, this thread is an absolute insult to the 1st century martyrs who walked into the Colisseum chanting hymns and prayers, and who voluntarily gave up their lives for Jesus Christ, based on nothing more than oral tradition!
May these martyrs, devoured by wild beasts, crucified (especially St. Peter, who in total humility asked to be crucified upside down), and turned into living torches to illuminate the stadium ask our Lord for mercy on your soul.
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.