Posted on 02/24/2015 7:04:16 PM PST by redleghunter
Explain how the Catholic church is more visible than the body of Christ comprised of all believers regardless of denominational affiliation.
I don't think you want to go down this road.
To be deep in Scripture is to cease to be a Catholic......
Grow up.
And while both are invoked for support, both have things which impugn their character, but which for RCs is more critical, as they are far more leadership-intensive, as seen by the daily posts on the pope for months.
And if Luther has letters were invoked by Nazis, Rome has actions and provided much for antisemitism. But cultic defenders of Rome only see what is in someone else's eye.
In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,
“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9). More in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 . And see here .
Of what writings comprise Holy Scripture. If you track my comments on the thread, I am asking one simple question, based on a snip from the OP.
MacArthur used the term "the church." I am interested in what he might mean by that.
Bmfl
Why do we need *consensus* to determine what is or is not Scripture?
Does the consensus MAKE it Scripture?
Is it not Scripture by virtue of the fact that it’s God’ breathed, Holy Spirit inspired?
Consensus is no more than man’s stamp of approval on what God has already done and declared but does not validate Scripture, which is inherently Scripture without the validation of man.
Jesus called virtually all of the OT *Scripture* and quoted from it extensively, settling it for the OT.
Peter called Paul’s writings *Scripture* so that settles it for much of the NT.
There are a few other books widely recognized for a long time as *Scripture*, but they become Scripture because some council decided that they were. They already were.
Ask him. I'm sure if you emailed his organization, they could answer the question for him.
Where exactly do you see that? Where, beyond a sola apologetic? How do you know that your scenario is what happened?
I have not said a word on thread about the Catholic church. I HAVE referred to MacArthur's use of the term "the church."
I have noted the common conception of the "invisible church." Seems people do not want to engage the actual question I am asking. Wonder why.
*sigh*
Well, for most of the RC’s on this forum, they brag on the RCC being the *visible* body of Christ on the earth.
When non-Catholics address the fact that the body of Christ is comprised of believers of all time throughout the church age, they pitch a fit and question how a church can be invisible.
Y’all ought to make up your collective minds on what you want your words to mean so everyone can keep track of what page y’all are on.
That is an argument from the conclusion. One needs to think about what they were thinking and doing in the 4th century, when this was undecided.
Consensus is no more than man’s stamp of approval on what God has already done and declared but does not validate Scripture, which is inherently Scripture without the validation of man.
Where and how did God declare The Epistle of James, among others, to be Scripture? Martin Luther disagreed with God on this.
Ah! So you DO confirm the concept of an invisible church? Thank you. So please, pretty please, explain exactly how a consensus about what writings comprise Holy Scripture is formed by invisible members.
How can they even know each other and the views they hold (held) on specific potential inclusions into Holy Scripture?
.
>> “of the same mind towards Jews as it were.” <<
.
And has been so since the mid 4th century when the RCC was founded by Constantine, a mass murderer of not just Jews, but all that kept Yehova’s commandments.
.
.
>> “What’s the need for *consensus* anyway?” <<
.
To establish the false authority of men (in dresses no less) over Yeshua’s assembly.
.
Not interested in the testimony of a Nazi who got paid for making things up. How about addressing the AS endemic to the papacy for 1500 years. Get that squared away, you might have standing to talk about another.
I'll add to my earlier response: Luther wrote, Catholics did. Some were made 'Saints' for it.
.
I fully engaged your false,deceptive question, and you declared it to be a rabbit trail.
No visible evidence that you wish anything but to discredit the word of God as revealed to the elect directly by the Holy Spirit.
.
I never denied an *invisible* church.
So your *Aha!* falls flat.
If you are referring to what is included in the BIBLE, that’s one thing.
Deciding what is included in Scripture is GOD’S repsonsibility, not man’s.
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.