And now that I've stopped laughing at that comment I'll put it in plain English for those who are not familiar with the dialect of narcissisic Ebonics the Self Alone crowd speak:
Posted on 09/19/2013 8:46:24 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
Pope Francis, in the first extensive interview of his six-month-old papacy, said that the Roman Catholic church had grown “obsessed” with preaching about abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he has chosen not to speak of those issues despite recriminations from some critics.
In remarkably blunt language, Francis sought to set a new tone for the church, saying it should be a “home for all” and not a “small chapel” focused on doctrine, orthodoxy and a limited agenda of moral teachings.
“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time,” the pope told the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, a fellow Jesuit and editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal whose content is routinely approved by the Vatican. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Only when speaking in accordance with her infallible scope and subject - based formula, which means the declaration of assured infallibility is itself infallible (though that guarantee does not extend to arguments given for it).
But which is not what Scripture teaches, nor is it necessary for the recognition and preservation of Truth.
Whatever sin(s) you commit. Nobody is perfect, and that is why we have confession.
You could have read the entire interview. It would have made a world of difference.
You would have read how he points out specific sections of the Catechism.
I have heard different parts in different homilies. I am fortunate enough to have had some great priests!
You like my tagline? Racist.
:)
That is absurd. While official statements sound conservative, yet as James states (whom RCs like to quote),
"I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18b)
And what Rome effectually teaches is liberalism, counting and treating even public liberals (like Ted Kennedy) as members in life and in death, while liberalism predominates where Catholicism does.
Meanwhile, evangelical faith has been more morally conservative, and is now even in the latter days apostasy of the church.
Actually, while i do not know much of the faith of the 15 year FF veteran Dr. Thorne (though he sounds like a TRC like you), those who hold Scripture as supreme, versus sola ecclesia as you must (and cults typically effectively do), usually do affirm Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and supreme authority, as revealed most supremely in Scripture, versus the doctrine of the RCC.
And under Scripture, SS as historically understood does not make self the supreme authority any more than self in Romanism. Both claim an infallible supreme authority on earth, defining the truth of God, but both engage in interpretation of it.
A RC must rely on fallible human reasoning in order to make a decision to submit to Rome, and even then he must engage in interpretation as to which magisterial class multitudes of teaches fall into (there being no infallible list of such), and thus what level of submission is required, and if any and how much dissent is allowed. And even then varying degrees of interpretation are sometimes required as to its meaning. The present Popes interpretation versus that of TRCs examples that, and which is magnified on the corporate level within Romanism.
And as Ratzinger wrote in 1968:
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. (http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html)
In addition are the formal divisions within Catholicism, as well as btwn others who operate according to the Roman model (the church being the supreme, unquestionable authority). And thus under sola ecclesia you also have self deciding what the truth is and sects and divisions, the difference with SS mainly being a matter of scope.
such people worship their own, Most High and Holy Self because that's who they claim is superior to His Word; their Self and Self Alone.
Actually, you are again resorting to another RC straw man, while it is in Rome that we see Self Alone most supremely exampled, as the pope and an individual is set forth as possessing (conditional) assured infallibility, thus speaking as God, and unable to be reproved, which no believers under SS can claim. Instead, truth claims must be based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, which was how the church began, in word and in power, not under the premise of a perpetual infallible magisterium.
It is also in Rome that we see the Most High and Holy Self exampled as a particular church, as they effectively claim their Rome is superior to the Word of God, as only she can authoritatively define what it consists of and its meaning.
Moreover, it is Rome that is most like the Pharisees,
For the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
Therefore faithful RCs are not to engage in objective examination of Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of the doctrine of Rome, as the noble Bereans did, and under SS they are to do so, but the faithful RCs are bound to believe and blindly defend official RC teaching. As we see them doing here so often, and thus repulsing those who seek to be as the noble Bereans.
And rather exalting self as being little infallible popes, while rightly seeing claims of assured infallibility, as per Rome, as being unScriptural, Westminster upholds that,
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
When someone only accepts the Anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture rather than the entire Bible
Actually, the Lord admonished the apostles to observe and do all that the scribes and the Pharisees asked of them, as they sat sit in Moses' seat, (Matthew 23:2-3) obviously except that which was contrary to Scripture, which He reproved them by. But never did the Lord censure them for their canon, while Lk. 24:44 best indicates the Lord referencing the Tripartite 22 book (=39) canon.
The Septuagint LXX with its variations and latter additions is a problematic reference for inclusion of the Apocrypha in the 1st cent. Scriptures, as has been shown in many previous debates here on this issue.
Meanwhile, Luther was not charged with denying the apocrypha, as he was not alone in this among Catholics, as there was not infallible, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, but dissent continued thru the centuries and right into Trent. That is history .
Job_11:4 For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.
Joh_7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Rom_6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
1Ti_1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti_4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Unlike this pope the Lord seems to think there is not much that is more important than doctrine...
It is very good not to be Catholic...
“and is now even in the latter days apostasy of the church.”
Indeed! Sad, and true.
If the canon is important Christ would have pointed out tat part of what was included in the Septuagint shouldn't be in it and since He didn't The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded was following Christ by keeping the Septuagint intact.
Of course, people who think nothing of throwing portions of the Word of God into the garbage make all kind of excuses for pleasing their Self but they can't hide from the fact that they're just pleasing their Self and Self Alone. In doing so elevate themselves above His Word exactly he same way Eve did when she relied on her Self.
Your conclusion is based on presuppositions, the first one being that Christ gave the keys to Peter, versus that on the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church, which perhaps you reject, though many church "fathers" understood Mt. 16:18 that way.
And indeed, nowhere does in the rest of the NT is Peter called the rock upon which the church is built. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Invoking Aramaic is problematic, while it is evident that the NT church did not look to Peter as its supreme infallible head reigning over all the church as per Rome, and scholars recognize this was not the case with sppsd early successors, though he was the basic leader among brethren, and exercised a general pastoral role.
The second is that the Jews changed the canon after the church began,, rejecting the apocrypha, but though this became the more universally affirmed position (though the so-called council of Jamnia is largely discredited), your "change" assertion presupposes that the Pharisees accepted the apocrypha, which lacks proof. As does that the canon was strictly settled, which even for RCs would not occur until over 1400 years after the last NT book was penned. But evidence points against the Pharisees affirming the apocrypha, and thus as a RC source states, "Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews [to which Josephus with his 22 book canon was part of] accept the shorter Hebrew Canon. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/bible/the-apocrypha/ And very little is known about the Septuagint that was used in Jesus’ day, nor do allusions or even references to a book necessarily affirm such as Scripture, the word of God, unless it is referenced as being so, which we see the NT doing .
This can be an extended exchange, much of which has been done here, however, your charge was that Prots followed Luther who followed Jews, yet fact remains that there is no real support that Christ referred to the apocrypha as Scripture, nor was that a charge against Luther at his trial, as he did not dissent from an indisputable canon, as your charge infers. And in fact, Luther was following Catholics such as Jerome, whom popes esteem. Thus your beef with Luther about the canon is foundationally anachronistic.
Were that not the case nothing in the New Testament could be considered to be the Word or God without Jews who deny that Christ is God approving of it first.
The error here is that it presupposes that an infallible magisterium is necessary to define what Divine revelation consists of, and that dissent from the stewards of Divine revelation is damnable, but both of which is untenable, else the church would be rendered invalid.
Like true men of God, writings of God were essentially established as being such not due to conciliar decree, as helpful and proper as they can be, but due to their enduring Divine qualities and attestation. The powers that be are to affirm this, but they are what they are even when they are rejected by those who sit in power. And thus the church began in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity above that which is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) and were reproved by what is written, Scripture being supreme. (Mk. 7:2-16)
If the canon is important Christ would have pointed out tat part of what was included in the Septuagint shouldn't be in it and since He didn't The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded was following Christ by keeping the Septuagint intact.
Your conclusion based a specious premise, that Christ affirmed the Septuagint that contained the whole apocrypha, but which is presumption at best, as my provided link substantiated.
Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.
Moreover, simply because Scripture quotes from a source does not make the whole of it canonical, as Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)
Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha..
Of course, people who think nothing of throwing portions of the Word of God into the garbage make all kind of excuses for pleasing their Self but they can't hide from the fact that they're just pleasing their Self and Self Alone.
Reiterating your rant does not make it true or refute what i had objectively wrote, and it indicts multitudes of men such as Jerome who, according to your judgment, threw portions of the Word of God into the garbage (for Scripture is Scripture even before Rome defines it as being so).
In addition, your judgment that makes submitting to Scripture as supreme versus the magisterium actually makes the church as being based on the supremacy of self.
For the NT church began with individuals who choose to follow a holy man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Preacher, both of which were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses.
But the Lord and His apostles established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in word and in power, not upon the premise of the magisterium being the supreme incontestable authority. And thus the church began contrary to the RC model, and thus it has been preserved as the body of Christ.
Moreover, as said, both RCs and evangelicals decide as individuals what to submit to, and engage in varying degrees of interpretation of it, and can disagree about many things. And other Catholics disagree with Rome on many things, despite unity on core truths, dissent from which makes on a schismatic or heretic.
Meanwhile, despite its divisions, evangelicalism itself has overall been marked by a common affirmation of core truths, most of which she shares with Rome (these being Scripturally substantiated), and contention against those who deny them.
And which groups usually operate under sola ecclesia. Modern evangelicalism actually began because of a shared common contention for basic truths and principals. And which even in its weakened form today still results in it being counted an enemy of both liberals and Catholicism (which would lose most of her numbers without the liberals). Furthermore, it is denial of self rather than the exaltation of it that overall has marked vibrant historical evangelical faith and individuals of it.
In doing so elevate themselves above His Word exactly he same way Eve did when she relied on her Self
Not so, as that is what Rome herself does, while under SS the individual is abased as a sinner, utterly dependent on the grace of God, with Scripture, not uninspired men of Rome, being the supreme authority on what is Truth. Like RCs, the individual decides to choose and submit to his authority, and to some degree on what it means, but this manifestly fosters and allows for greater variety in Catholicism than evangelical faith, despite what Rome officially may say.
Why don't you accept the entire Bible?
And who believes the NY Times?
Instead read the entire text and make your own decisions — bet they are better than the Slimes rendition (lies):
http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
NOT!
Quotes taken out of context. It *IS* the Slimes. It’s what they do.
An insolent reply which testifies to inability or unwillingness of RC to engage in objective analysis and reasoning and instead resort to their own personal judgments while condemning others for doing the same.
Regardless, the answer is that we do accept the entire Bible, based upon the same means by which writings were established as Scripture before their was a church of Rome that asserted that it was necessary for this. To which the NT is counted to have approx 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to.
And as writings were established as Scripture without Rome, she cannot claim to be the authority on what Scripture consists of. You can argue by assertion that she is, but that goes nowhere, nor did the church begin based upon the Roman model for authority.
Meanwhile, as said, in principal you also accuse men such as Jerome as as being "Eve," and cannot condemn Luther for deviating from an indisputable canon, while the Orthodox can accuse you of being an Eve for not accepting all of their Bible.
The fact is that the 66 books of the Bible are far more read then the relatively obscure apocrypha, due to the latter lacking the qualities of the former, while because few RCs are born again, they do little Bible reading on their own, and do not get much of the whole Bible even via weekly mass.
Where in Scripture does it say to throw any part of the Septuagint in the garbage?
Nowhere.
Therefore you definitely do not accept the entire Bible and all the "Scripture Alone" and "Bible believing" noise is nothing but trash to hide embracing the traditions of men. Men who were anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees, from whom all authority had been taken. For those who throw Scripture in the garbage, the traditions they accept from such men are superior to not only Scripture itself, but superior to Jesus Christ Himself as well.
In order to avoid the Truth by throwing out part of His Word you have to first assert that the Holy Spirit could not and did not preserve His Word intact but you as an individual can do what the Holy Spirit could not do.
Given that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son your assertion of being superior to the Holy Spirit is also a claim of being superior to God Himself.
Someone who claims to be superior to God Almighty does not worship Jesus Christ, they are not in any way Christian.
Such a person worships their own Most High and Holy Self.
They may be deluded and blind so they've never thought through the falsehoods they've embraced but that doesn't change the fact that they worship their Self and Self Alone.
have a nice day
And now that I've stopped laughing at that comment I'll put it in plain English for those who are not familiar with the dialect of narcissisic Ebonics the Self Alone crowd speak:
Another argument from silence, which RCs often rely on, while the weight of evidence is that the writings the Lord called Scripture (Lk. 24:44,45) and told the Jews to search, (Jn. 5:39) was not the apocrypha.
Men who were anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees, from whom all authority had been taken.
Wrong, as the Lord enjoined obedience to them except where they were contrary to Scripture, and never reproved them for not holding to the apocryphal books, or specifically cites any writings from them as Scripture (despite some allusions), in contrast to our canonical texts, nor can it be shown the 1st cent. LXX contained them. Thus your logic condemns rejecting all that the Pharisees taught.
In addition, as said, under the RC model we are to submit to the magisterium, which is necessary to discern and preserve Truth, thus invalidating the church, while Rome is most like the Pharisees.
Thus what you charge us as doing actually applies to Rome who adds to the word of God, while again, your censure also applies to pre-Trent scholars whom Luther followed in rejecting the apocrypha as Scripture proper (though he did include it in his translation). And where is your condemnation for the EOs for differing from the RC canon?
As for the rest of your rant, which is all it is, most like the Pharisees, your premise, that we reject part of God's word as defined by Rome, makes Rome out to be as almighty God.
Thus once again at attempt to defend Rome is an argument against it, which your specious rants only add to.
Please see post #71. I think you’ll find it very interesting.
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.