Posted on 01/12/2014 5:53:46 AM PST by knarf
Very true.
Very true is not what RCs argue, but that the RCC only is what can determine and establish what is and what is not of God. You disagree?
Very true. However, this does not solve the problem of disunity on what those holy books were, and this leads to error and heresy, leading to the critical Arian heresy. This is not small stuff, but gets to the central tenets of what Christianity is and what Christians believe.
But the issue is not that of the need for the place of the magisterium, but that of the need for the infallible authoritative magisterium of Rome, and its basis for determining Truth, which is what you must argue for. And thus my unanswered questions. p> Scripture upholds the need for magisterial oversight, and which as such statements as that of Westminster affirms,
It belongeth 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..
But the veracity of such teachings are dependent upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, but which is not the case for Rome, as she can decree something as infallible Truth even if it is not taught in Scripture - as long as it does not contradict Scripture. But which Rome is the judge of. Thus in reality the veracity of Rome's doctrine is based upon the premise that she is possesses assured veracity, when speaking in such as manner that means she is, having claimed such for herself.
“...ask yourself how 1st century souls knew that Jesus was the Christ, or that Isaiah etc. was inspired. Don’t forgot to answer it.”
This gets to the point of Tradition and Apostolic Succession. After those who were fortunate and blessed enough to actually see Jesus Christ teach and fulfill his crucifixion and resurrection, we had the Apostles.Both in Biblical evidence and in historic evidence of the Early Church we see both of those give fairly compelling evidence to support the Catholic Church...‘St. Clement,...Eusebius
Not essentially the Roman Catholic so, and I already said this is contested by historical evidence (and Eusebius is dubious), but you continue to fail to answer clearly my questions, perhaps so you can argue you did not say what it seems you are saying.
Thus i ask you again, do you hold that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance? And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority. This is what i see you arguing, but need to know if it is.
There is obviously development of the Church, I will say that, Development of Doctrine became downward, parly due to a lack of “unanimous consent ” of the fathers , even making use of forgeries for a time.
. With respect, and I say this in a loving respect to you as a Christian brother,
That is kind, but this testifies to the lack of unity in Rome, as others even here disallow such a former RC as myself can be a Christian, based on their understanding of Rome.
, it definitely doesn’t look like the Protestant Churches of modern day.
You mean you see the NT in Scripture the churches being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?
Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?
And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?
And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"
And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.
And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?
And a separate class of believers called “saints,
And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?
And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?
And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent
Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.
And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.
And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.
And which boasts of unity while being discouraged from objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.
This will suffice for now, and while i do not see any body of apostles today, esp in Catholicism, with the degree of power, purity, piety and performance like that of the early church, and that could effectually function as a universal magisterium, (which Rome is not even a form of), and the church overall as in negative contrast with the early church, yet among churches that hold Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God,
i see men ordained according to the Biblical requirements, (1Tim. 3:1-7)
with with simple titles of pastor as elders/bishops, that being one office, (Titus 1:5-7)
and clothed with humility as well the clothes of common men, (Mt. 23:5-12)
and taking part in the communal Lord's supper as the memorial that it is, showing the Lord's death till He comes, (1Cor. 11 ) and praying not to the departed or images,
and preaching the gospel of repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save contrite damned + destitute sinners on His expense and credit, (Eph. 2:8,9) that being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 3 - 4:7ff)
which heart faith confesses the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 10:9,10) justifying them as souls having saving faith, (Heb. 6:9,10). and thus baptizing them as believers who can fulfill the stated requirements of repentance and wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
and thus overall on the practical level they foster the most unified and committed group of born again believers in core Christian truths,
realizing a basic unity of the Spirit as a result of a common personal conversion of heart faith in Christ, and resultant Scripture-based relationship with Him, which transcends external tribalism,
thus being treated by both Rome and liberals alike as their greatest threat to their rule.
But who, as predicted in the latter days, have been and increasingly are a remnant. To God be the glory.
Traveling on the road...
May you have a good trip.
“Ego undisciplined often finds a way to get in the way, “
It’s a constant battle for me.... The ouch’s are God helping me!
“I’m curious about where your thoughts and opinions were about the things you’re sharing here before your NDE.”
I was a non-religious Type A, own it or control it, logical, insensitive executive. That person died in the NDE and I came back the exact opposite.
That is a great video, I've showed it to posters more than once.
Deception and lying, just like Islamists in order to con people into believing in false belief systems.
So Yeshua was worried for nothing?
Don’t think so!
>> “Doesn’t your position put you at odds with many or most your fellow Protestants?” <<
As long as it doesn’t put me at odds with Yeshua!
I’m sure glad that they were all recorded somewhere, else there’d be denial by the boatloads that such things were ever said.
“Very true is not what RCs argue, but that the RCC only is what can determine and establish what is and what is not of God. You disagree? …Rome, as she can decree something as infallible Truth even if it is not taught in Scripture - as long as it does not contradict Scripture “
Correct. The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16).
“… do you hold that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance? And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority. This is what i see you arguing, but need to know if it is.”
I thought I had answered this. To clarify, Yes. However, I’d qualify that The Catholic Church is Christ instituted as stated in the Scripture from the mouth and authority of Jesus Christ. If you do not agree, please explain specifically, what you disagree with on this matter. So, this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ, but is confirmed with historic accounts of deference to Peter and his successors.
“That is kind, but this testifies to the lack of unity in Rome, as others even here disallow such a former RC as myself can be a Christian, based on their understanding of Rome.”
If you believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian brother of mine. The Catholic teaching on this is clear. I’m curious for you to expound on this comment.
In an effort to keep this focused and discuss the above in more detail, I have not responded to your voluminous objections to Catholic Doctrine. We can come back to each point of doctrine, regarding Mary, Communion of Saints, Priests, Infant Baptism et al. Let’s do them one or two at a time at your choosing.
I’ll disappoint both my Catholic brothers and Protestant brothers on Mary. I do believe the Catholic teaching regarding Mary is correct. I do honor and venerate Mary. But, I’m way to ADHD to concentrate on Jesus and Mary, lol. I simply don’t have a devotion to Mary as many Catholics do. There is so much to take in regarding Christ, His teaching and the Church He commissioned.
and follow the church that HE founded and act accordingly...do not REFUSE the gift of salvation, but follow Christ as though you believe that HE is, indeed the savior.
Tradition...
Yup; and restornu has this down to a fine art!
Poor Mormons; they can't deny, but only IGNORE their chosen religion's history, writings, teachings and quotes from leaders.
Pathetic!
Nope...You get out of any church that veers off the track just as Martin Luther did...You never follow any church...You never follow a religion...You never follow a man...You follow Jesus...
Yes! AMEN. It's a relationship with Jesus not a religion that will get us to heaven! Man, ANY MAN, including a Pope, is fallible!
Prove it.
"Seeing that you have been here very long you are certainly no expert on my posting habits. But a minimal search on your part will uncover spirited conversations with my dear Baptist, Methodist and various other brethren and sisters."
Because nobody ever read FR before the day they signed up to post?. I've been lurking since around the same time you signed up. And your discussions with other protestants are never nearly as "spirited" as your clashes with Catholics.
"Matters not, since these are not items true (classical) Protestants lose sleep over. Stop trying to create controversy where there is none."
Right then. I'll remember from now on that "classical" protestants don't lose sleep over extra-marital sex.
No, Jesus is probably scratching His head bit too.
Correct. The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16).
And therefore Scripture could not be established as it was befroe Christ, and according to Rome's interpretation of of tradition and Scripture and history, according to her interpretation (or decree) can be correct in any conflict, and only by her sanction can anything have valid authority. By such you have assurance.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
“… do you hold that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance? And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority. This is what i see you arguing, but need to know if it is.”
I thought I had answered this. To clarify, Yes. However, I’d qualify that ...
Your s qualification that "a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance" is based upon Scripture and history, but your understanding requires and is based upon what the magisterium spoken of.
Perhaps you are advocating objectively searching the Scriptures, as if it were the supreme authority, in order to ascertain and have assurance of the truthfulness of Rome's claims, leading to assent Rome as the supreme authority and means of assurance of truth, rather than objectively searching the Scriptures as the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. Which it is abundantly evidenced to be,
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
However, under your Roman model for indisputably determining which writings and men are of God, so that what it rejects must be rejected, since history shows it being the steward of Scripture, etc., then the church itself is rendered invalid, as it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) . (Romans 9:4-5)
And rather than assurance of truth being upon the premise of an infallible magisterium, assurance that an itinerant preacher, rejected the valid magisterium, was the Christ and the basis upon which the church was founded, was upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) And which led to both division and unity.
However, I’d qualify that The Catholic Church is Christ instituted as stated in the Scripture from the mouth and authority of Jesus Christ. If you do not agree, please explain specifically, what you disagree with on this matter. So, this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ, but is confirmed with historic accounts of deference to Peter and his successors.
"this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ..." is open to interpretation, even from your brother in the Eastern Orthodox. You may be persuaded that Scripture and history makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true church, but this is based upon your own fallible human reasoning, which places you on the same basis for determining truth as us.
Instead, your basis for assurance of truth rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of the Roman Catholic, who has declared that she is the one true and infallible church.
If you believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian brother of mine. The Catholic teaching on this is clear. I’m curious for you to expound on this comment.
I will keep you in mind next time a RC, describes all Protestants as "absolutely alien to Christianity," as "a bizarre and false religion," who "completely reject Christ," etc. as has been said here, besides other invectives.
n an effort to keep this focused and discuss the above in more detail, I have not responded to your voluminous objections to Catholic Doctrine. We can come back to each point of doctrine,
Which were a result of your not directly answering the simple questions as your basis for assurance of Truth, but posting things subject to dispute as if this was your basis. If you want to argue based on evidences, we can do that, but as what you seek to prove needed to be established, which isn not simply the need for a magisterium, but sola ecclesia with an infallible magisterium, and that Rome is that.
I’ll disappoint both my Catholic brothers and Protestant brothers on Mary. I do believe the Catholic teaching regarding Mary is correct. I do honor and venerate Mary. But, I’m way to ADHD to concentrate on Jesus and Mary, lol. I simply don’t have a devotion to Mary as many Catholics do.
Now you are really an exception, but actually it is Catholic teaching - and what Catholics teach with sanction or without censure - that is the problem. You should know that nothing is allowed by Catholics that takes away from the demigoddess status afforded the Mary of Catholicism , who parallels Christ in multitude ways, such as being sinless, a perpetual virgin, already crowned, as the Queen of the Universe, and Queen of Heaven, who seems to have the same power as God, and whose words are like commands to God, and that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, the dispenser of all grace, and who also suffered for our sins as co-redemptrix, who saves us by her merits, and gives us her flesh to eat, and who is formally the Mother of God, etc. None of which is the teaching of Scripture. But which is what happens when a church presumes it is the supreme authority on Truth, and makes nebulous oral tradition equal with Scripture, channeling it into doctrines.
This is true, but as i just posted, the problem with that premise is that it means the 1st cent. souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation.
OH pshaw. That’s only a technicality that I’m sure our RC Friends could quickly explain away. Maybe they would have to ask their friends in those cute fish hats they borrowed from the priests to the pagan fish god Dagon.
“And therefore Scripture could not be established as it was before Christ”
Old Testament Scripture is accepted as the Word of God, which was before Christ. Jesus Christ came first, His Apostles and Church come next, then New Testament Scripture. Yet, the Gospel didn’t wait for Scripture to be written, later. No, the Good News was taught after The Great Commission and obviously, prior to the written Word.
“Perhaps you are advocating objectively searching the Scriptures, as if it were the supreme authority, in order to ascertain and have assurance of the truthfulness of Rome’s claims…”
The Scriptures are the Word of God and they should be searched, read, studied and prayed upon, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. God, who have us His Word, also gave us His Son. His Son authorized His Church, “and hell shall not prevail against it”. Christ’s Church confirmed valid and accepted Scripture. We are to read this Scripture with the benefit of the Holy Spirit. When we have natural disagreements as to what The Word of God is saying, we have the “pillar of Truth”, to assist us.
“…then the church itself is rendered invalid, as it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) . (Romans 9:4-5) “
No. Jesus and Jesus’ Church is Truth. Christ came “not to destroy the Old Law…but to fulfil it.” It is clear that “some have heard but do not see”. I don’t see a valid theological or logical point in that assertion.
“this authority comes solely from Scripture and Jesus Christ...” is open to interpretation, even from your brother in the Eastern Orthodox”
There is disagreement with our Orthodox brothers, but much in common, as Catholics can receive a valid Eucharist and Mass in an Orthodox Church, and vice versa.
“You may be persuaded that Scripture and history makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true church, but this is based upon your own fallible human reasoning, which places you on the same basis for determining truth as us.”
I would assert by the Grace of God, I can see Truth. And I submit to it. I believe it takes quite a bit of pretzel twisting and long-learned myths to not see the obvious Truth in Scripture.
And I think it is far fetched to believe that God would allow an imposter Church of His, to lead Christians for 1,500 years. That to me is uniquely unbelievable knowing the omnipotence of God.
“Now you are really an exception, but actually it is Catholic teaching - and what Catholics teach with sanction or without censure - that is the problem. You should know that nothing is allowed by Catholics that takes away from the demigoddess status afforded the Mary of Catholicism “
If Catholics worship Mary, or anyone or anything other than the Trinitarian God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church condemns it. That is idolatry and is punishable by excommunication. Catholics do pray to Mary at different intensity levels (I pray more to St. Joseph myself). I know this is difficult to understand because I’ve been where you are at and thought it was absurd. The best way I can explain it is to think of Mary or any other Saint, as a prayer partner. My high school class has many people praying together for a dear friend who has cancer. We are all praying and asking for help for this classmate, if it is in God’s will. It’s not the best example but it is fairly similar. We, as Catholics are not required to pray to anybody else. We can pray directly to Jesus, and we do. Praying to a saint or Mary is just asking The Lord to hear our prayer, although it is not a necessity.
“I will keep you in mind next time a RC, describes all Protestants as “absolutely alien to Christianity,” as “a bizarre and false religion,” who “completely reject Christ,” etc. as has been said here, besides other invectives.”
I am mostly a lurker in here and it obviously gets a little heated in both directions. LOL..I will see your “alien to Christianity” and raise it up to “demonic Satanic cult”. If they were sincere, then they were wrong. We have the option to forgive them. You have been given the Grace of knowing the Lord Jesus Christ, His Holy Word and the Holy Spirit and you are a Christian brother of mine and also of those who lost their temper and falsely demeaned you.
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.