Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
If their objective was to deal with the reformers what better way that to teach people to hate them ?
The Jesuits have been accused of teaching Hitler to persecute the Reformers. The Catholic Church suffered far more under the Nazis than the compliant Protestant churches in Germany and in the conquered langs of WWII. Where is the accusation now?
"Fully acceptable" does not mean that you believe the scriptures to be infallible. In fact, it sounds like a very half hearted response. If my wife got all dressed up and asked me how she looked and I said that she was "fully acceptable", I'm sure she'd slug me.
Your wife is not God. I hope however that you do not tell mine that in person and I will not tell yours that either.
I mean that Scriptures are only meaningful with the interpretation of the Church. The case of the Eunuch is most telling.
You stated in post 2093 the scriptures are not infallible or inerrant. The Church states they are. Would any decree coming from Rome be unacceptable? You are endangering your own soul and in peril of being anathematized.
Negative. I stated that they were not infallible. And I will say that just like the Eunuch, without the Church to interpret, it is as meaningless to anyone as it was to him.
I'm really not trying to put you on the spot. I'm simply pointing out that Catholics really no longer believe the scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. They do not follow the teachings of the early fathers. You are not the first that I've brought up the infallibility of the scriptures to, but you're at least reflective enough to answer this rather interesting question. Most Catholics just clam up. This is an illustration of how one of many doctrines of the Church has changed over the last 500 years.
Scriptures cannot be infallible. Their interpretation can be and is under the Church as Scripture itself illustrates. Do you realize that every major heresy of the first millennium can be defended directly from Scripture - admittedly snippets, but so are many current beliefs.
Catholics should think hard and long about what they actually believe, the inerrant scriptural teachings or someone telling them what to believe.
Even the NT shows the subordination of Jesus to the Father, and without John, almost no indication of the divinity of Jesus - only the status of a super David - the man. Paul did not preach the Trinity in his letters. It is in the Church - who wrote, harmonized, chose and kept publishing and interpreting the Scripture that we must put our trust.
No, I reject your man made religion
I don't have a religion. I get to follow Jesus.
Jesus put me into His REAL church the second I got saved...
How about you post a photo of your membership card. Are there secret handshakes?
There are many here whose god is the image in the mirror. They keep it on the hall stand and pat its head for luck when they walk by...
The Ram (Aries) was eventually replaced by a lamb.
It is also pointed out that shedding of blood was for sins done in ignorance,which would seem to include being deceived, and without intent to sin, while those who sinned presumptuously, knowingly, willfully by commission or omission, such as Ex. 21:14; Num. 9:13; Dt.17:12; 29:19,20; Josh. 7:21-25, had no atonement, but had to bear their iniquity. (Num. 15:27-31)
This meant facing the consequences, and they were to be utterly (key word) cut off, evidently usually by death, such as the man who blatantly rejected the command to rest on the 7th day sabbath and gathered firewood, and was stoned. (Num. 15:32-35)
Yet terms such as "ignorantly" and "presumptuously" require more, understanding, and we have instances in which enlightened souls who perhaps did knowingly sin (2Sam. 12:13; 1Ki. 21:25-29; Ezra 10) were convicted in heart and able to repent and find mercy, though there were consequences, and in Ezra 10 their conscience appears to have been dulled, and there needs to be judgment in all this.
All this corresponds to the N.T., in which souls are treated as deceived and ignorant before their conversion, (Titus 3:3) and thus the blasphemer and injurious persecutor Saul obtained mercy, because he did it "ignorantly in unbelief." (1Tim. 1:13) 14)
But judgment is according to light, (Lk. 16:48), and so believers are the most accountable, and like as those who would not keep the Passover were cut off, in Hebrews 10:25-39 (cf. Gal. 5:1-4) we are warned that those converts who forsake the (persecuted) Christian fellowship, and go on in impenitent willful sin (including going back into their former faith) have effectively denied and despised the faith, and will be treated as adversaries, for "the Lord shall judge his people."
Ananias and Sapphira are two examples of such accountable souls willfully, knowingly sinning, while Simon, who "believed and was baptized," is implicitly warned of the like in Acts 8:13,18-24 - and gets the message. And John warns about a" sin unto death," (1Jn. 5:16) of which he says "I do not say that he shall pray for it."
Yet in 1Cor. 5:5, a man who is involved in a most blatant sin is delivered over to the devil as a means of restorative chastisement, which worked, and in 1Cor. 11:20-32, believers who hypocritically commemorated the selfless death of Christ by selfishly eating at the love feast while others went hungry - thus effectively failing to recognize other members of the church as part of the body - were also supernaturally chastened unto repentance, though with some dying. And which restorative chastisement is necessary, if they would not be condemned with the rest of the world. (v. 32)
The primitive churches (plural) "walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied, (Ps. 9:31) and believers are to "rejoice with trembling," (Ps. 2:11) as we serve an awe-some and holy God, and so must i seek to better.
Very well, but what are you doing? Do you attend a church? Read the Bible? Attend ecumenical meetings? Somewhere there is a leader. Who is that leader and to what are they leading you?
We must try the spirits and never bow to them.
Well good Scotch is good Scotch, I say. But seriously, how do you try the spirits? Is not satan more powerful than any man? It took all that Jesus had to withstand satan, no?
If a man loves his wife and she wants the bedroom painted blue, he will do his best to see it done. And if he wants fried catfish, she will do her best to master that skill. Likewise between parents and children, lovers, friends and so on.
Are you reducing the condition of love to the fulfillment of whims and making that love condition upon it?
Indeed, when a person loves another deeply, he can no longer say whether he likes museums because she does or he does – or whether he likes cheeseburgers because she does or he does. So if we want what God wants it is because we love Him. And thereby, we don't need to "sweat the details."
Oh boy. Our imitation of Christ involves giving up of ourselves, but we do need to sweat the details. If we worship the Mormon God, for instance, will the Christian God understand that we actually meant well, so please don't hold it against us?
And it would entail wanting to be rid of everything that is an abomination to Him – whether in the world around us or in ourselves.
These include some of the details that we need to sweat. Remember that the Church took 3 centuries to come out with the definition of the Trinity and the Canon. If we reject the Trinity or believe in the Gospel of Thomas, is that small stuff?
And finally, what may be the most difficult for us to want that God wants since it involves suffering and destruction – that Jesus will come in power and glory and put down the rebellion that began with Satan and spread through Adam to mankind and then make all things new according to His will.
I have no idea what you mean here.
Yo Dude, I think I see a bit of Jesuit Thinking in your posts.... Loyola U perhaps? or just another proddy seeking the truth?
Amen
Extremely important and well stated point!
Interesting. In what fashion?
Loyola U perhaps?
No, me engineer. Me work with things. Me leave non Christian theological premises to certain idiots.
or just another proddy seeking the truth?
I spent some time in my teens and 20s wandering far afield, but I came back to the Church in much the same manner (only spiritually) as the Prodigal Son.
For clarification, are you saying that the RCC does not hold Scripture to be infallible in its original mss (as do most evangelicals)?
Do you realize that every major heresy of the first millennium can be defended directly from Scripture - admittedly snippets, but so are many current beliefs."
So the abuse of something invalidates its authority, or those who effectively or formally presume a doctrinal authority superior to it, but it validates one who uses it in asserting that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined criteria? By what means are we to ascertain that Rome is the One True and infallible Church?
For clarification, are you saying that the RCC does not hold Scripture to be infallible in its original mss (as do most evangelicals)?
For one thing, you do not have the original mss, so the question is really moot. For another thing, printed words cannot be infallible. They may be inerrant, but not infallible. A third point is that the interpretation of these words may be infallible. And they are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading the Magisterium of the Church, not Luther's every milkmaid.
So the abuse of something invalidates its authority, or those who effectively or formally presume a doctrinal authority superior to it, but it validates one who uses it in asserting that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined criteria? By what means are we to ascertain that Rome is the One True and infallible Church?
Why do you guys keep going on about Rome? What is your obsession? The Church was created by Jesus and commissioned by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. That is the authority - from Jesus, not from a self indulgent monk, and not from a power crazed monomaniacal lunatic. Or the absurd and most ridiculous Zwingli. The Church is the Church and it is not headquartered at Rome.
I think you did a brilliant job describing this subject. Thank you.
You’re going far afield from what I said.
To repeat:
By what teaching, by what example or principle of Jesus or his apostles are Christians authorized to use threats of death or harm against those who did not agree with them?
How is it anyone’s “duty” to persecute the Waldenses or any other group in Christ’s name?
Is it really that difficult a question?
The Church was not persecuting. They did their best to convince them to return to the Faith because the Church was afraid for their very souls. What lengths would you go to to stop another from going over to satan?
CS Lewis understood this to be the case as well, which is why he said that the gate to Hell will be slammed and locked from the inside.
“Cause you answer questions with another question”.
‘Nuff said?
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.