Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
If there is nothing else readers get from these threads I pray they get the truth from that passage.
Wow! So God couldn't have performed His will without the Catholic Church ey?
It seems to me your argument is with Captain Teague, Keeper of the Code. I have privately appealed (ask nicely) to the Captain before, where he patiently explained where and why I had been found in violation of the code. It doesn't mean he's always going to be correct, and every judge must answer for his rulings (else The Supremes are going to get away with murder, yet he is the moderator and makes those decisions. It is tough to overturn precedent, and I would expect changes to established rules and precedents would always be advertised first and not applied retroactively.
Today’s terycarl reading assignments:
Psalm 103:12
2 Peter 3:9
Romans 6 1:4
God is great. Enjoy.
When they preach works based salvation they have departed from scripture and are left to their carnal mind to devise their own plan. Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, and all other cults do not have the true Son of God as their savior. So the answer to that question is that it doesn't.
sure they were
Another bare assertion of fantasy, as they most manifestly were not
The deformation of the church was progressive, and while the body of Christ always endured, though the visible manifestations of it were never perfect, yet the church of Rome in particular, as the one taking up most of the broad way calling itself "Christian," stands in fundamental contrast to the NT church as manifested in Scripture. Which,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office, as per Rome which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be 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.
2. Never promised taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (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) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more .
You have just described Catholicism - except it detours sous to her mythical "purgatory" - which treats even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, like Teddy K., without any manifest repentance, but impenitence.
And as what one does constitutes the evidence of what one believes, Rome thus testifies that what she really believes is that what really matters is that you die a RC, with the majority being liberals (versus evangelicals) who at least support proabortion, prosodomite public figures.
But if a Teddy K became a conservative evangelical then real concern from his soul would be shown, the the preeminence of Rome is the priority, not holy faith.
This your church and these are your members, from whom you cannot separate unless you be in schism, as some RC's choose, and thus you must own it and them.
He did not die, but chastened unto repentance, though it can be reasoned that a sentence of death could be conducive to coming clean.
It occurs to me that when we see the RC's here showing their support for the power of the church to kill heretics, that that includes US.
I know that many of us non-Catholics have been outright called heretics on this forum.
I would hope that when those Catholics who support the killing of heretics do so, they did not realize that that includes those with whom they are engaging in conversation, aka, US, but who knows? Maybe they DO.
And you imagine the fall out if some Baptist came on board and advocated for the power of the Baptist church to use secular authorities to kill Catholics simply for the fact that they are Catholics and *heretics* in regard to God's word?
Was it murder to apply the death penalty for horse thievery in 19th century America, the bastion of protestant post-enlightenment thought?
Obfuscation, which is hard to believe you are ignorant of, as horse thievery is not a crime of belief, nor executed under obedience to the church ruling over all.
Both Catholic and Prot theocratic governments which employed the sword of men to deal with theological dissent were wrong, which was one more thing Prots had to unlearn from Rome.
Actually, mom, I thought I was being genuine and conciliatory. Suppose I just don’t know how to...yet.
Indeed, murder is a sin. It seems to me you must be referring elsewhere, since all my points concerned scriptural cases in a point that was blown out of proportion due to some previous posts I had not even read. Killing is not murder when God does it, and it seems to me, unless one cedes the scriptures, one has to concur that Elijah, Elisha, Peter, and Paul did not commit murder when God used their words to kill people. My point, as far as I'm concerned, gives no sanction in the almost two millennia of Gentile wars, with people killing people because of their religious persuasions.
That is done by some guy who they can't be sure isn't diddling little boys. Is it any wonder they have no assurance of salvation?
Complex ? It seems to me you are making this personal. You could discuss the issues or ignore my posts if they are not your flavor. I'm sure there are others to evangelize.
I believe that you are correct, and no doubt some of them salivate at the very thought. For those of us who were never baptized as Catholics, we might be exempt from their desired inquisition, but I'm sure they've got something else worked out for us too.
But not only can canon 915 be changed, but what one believes is manifest by what they do, (Ja. 2:18) and as legislating the use of torture and death of heretics was a matter of interpretation, as was the later rejection of such, so also we see Rome's interpretation of herself in even sanctioning private masses for a manifestly impenitent Teddy K.
And what you see as a grave scandal is understood by other RCs as mercy and grace, without any penalty, but even encouragement from high powers that be.
Thus the problem when a church and men presume a higher authority than Scripture. In one century one can be required to exterminate all the heretics in the land, like as seen mandated in Islam, and in other that can be censored.
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.