Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: cloudmountain; ColdSteelTalon; HarleyD
And, since you are a Protestant, you are allowed to interpret Scripture ANY way you choose to. So, for you, the rapture is real and on its way.

Rather, since i am a evangelical Protestant, i am free to go where the truth leads, and examine truth claims by Scripture, in accordance with the manner of doctrinal exegesis it teaches, as noble men whom the Holy Spirit commends did, (Acts 17:11) and upon which warrant Christ established His claims and thus the church, rather than giving implicit assent of faith to a self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium (sola ecclesia).

The reality is rather than doctrinal anarchy characterizing historical Protestantism, those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture are marked by a common assent to core truths, and thus contend against cults who deny them.

While characteristically commonly holding to core truth, those who hold to Sola Scriptura do have disagreements in other areas, and likewise Roman Catholics must hold to certain core truths, while allowing varying degrees of disagreement in other things.

And under sola ecclesia there are also formal divisions. The difference between the two models is only a matter of degrees, while groups actually operate according to the means of Rome - that of a supreme magisterium acting as if it was assuredly infallible (sola ecclesia) - teach the more perverse things.

Being Catholic, I take the word of the Church, not words of individual priests. I always look for the words nihil obstat (declaration) and Imprimature (Let it be printed.). Those words make whatever is printed official Church-backed information.

Actually, despite your assurance of doctrine you assert you find in Rome, there is much disagreement and uncertainty, which even extends to what considered “infallible teaching.”

Can you tell me how many infallible teachings there are? Are all encyclicals infallible? Is everything in the Roman Catholic catechism infallible? Is everything Trent taught infallible?

So far, I've not seen hide nor hair of nihil obstat and Imprimature.

Well, the very article of the OP which you responding to has none, but your statement is just another example of the confusion that exists in Roman Catholicism, in which many opinions are offered as what kind of assurance these stamps provide. Some see them as assuring orthodoxy, while others do not even bother to seek them anymore, despite its history and the weight the Catechism places on such approval.

But since you see these as assuring such are official Church-backed information, then if you must defend such, you must support such teachings as that,

* Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson

*The story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.

*The ages of the patriarchs after the flood are artificial and devoid of historical value.

*The Israelites crossed over the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea” (yet perhaps making the drowning of Pharaoh's army equally miraculous).

*Matthew may have only placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount on a mount.

And there is more, and to which can be added such things as papal sanction of torture of theological deviants, or suspects of such, and burning of heretics, of which class Rome now calls separated brethren.

37 posted on 04/01/2012 4:19:05 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212
Actually, despite your assurance of doctrine you assert you find in Rome, there is much disagreement and uncertainty, which even extends to what considered “infallible teaching.”

There certainly ARE Catholics who have decided that they will believe in some stuff and won't believe in other stuff...but there is no disagreement or uncertainly on what our Catholic Church believes and teaches. The Catholic catechism has our entire faith in it--has it all.

However, you very well may have been speaking with Catholics who are NOT versed in their faith at all. With THEM you will definitely have disagreements and uncertainly. It's like speaking with some of the 20,000-30,000+ different Protestant about disagreement and uncertainty.

It must be difficult for some people to see how fractured Christianity is (It's sad for me to see.): ONE Catholic Church and 25,000 (Give or take) different Protestant about disagreement and uncertainty.

53 posted on 04/01/2012 7:35:52 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; Salvation

I agree with much of what you say, and Salvation, I’ve only been registered a few months, so please pardon a highjack rather than a new thread, but Daniell212, could you provide early citations for the papal sanctions for torture.

I have Damasus about 383 AD, against a Spanish bishop Priscillian.

The earliest biblical justification for force against Christians I’ve seen is Augustine, bishop of Hippo, about 400 AD, citing Luke 14:23, which is a parable concerning compelling probable unbelievers.

Thanks for your help.

54 posted on 04/01/2012 7:38:11 PM PDT by anathemized (cursed by some, blessed in Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson