Posted on 04/26/2015 1:05:20 PM PDT by RnMomof7
ping
To the point. And on point.
Thanks RnMom!
Hoss
To the point. And on point.
Thanks RnMom!
Hoss
One minute they bash Luther.
The next they hold him up.
When challenged with facts they queue the crickets.
They are experts at ducking and dodging without putting serious thought into anything. (There are two or so exceptions)
**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. **
Not true.
Well ... that settles it ... LOL ...
LOL!
Ah... The classic “Pee Wee Herman” debate tactic. “I know you are but what am I.”
What is wrong with discussing comparative religion on a religion forum?
**Rome likes to compare herself with the whole of Protestantism rather than with a single Confession that is internally consistent with itself, like the Westminster standards.**
At least we pull out RC catechisms and writings. They, even when challenged, refuse to cite anything from any “Protestant” writing.
From the article....
” Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. ......Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity (and apply her reasoning) then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. ....In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don’t......... But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?!”.......
....By 170 A.D. most of the bible had already been approved and read by the church. ...This was long ‘before any council’.
All the New Testament books were written approximately between 40-65 A.D.. (excluding John written in 75-95 A.D). Therefore it’s more than reasonable that the Bible be used as the test of any Doctrine and based on it’s truth.
Here are some other passages which compliment 2 Peter 1:20.
Luke 9:45 is interesting because it indicates that understanding the Scriptures is not an act of human will.
Also:
Luke 12:12
Luke 24:45
The bottom line is that anybody’s understanding of the Scriptures is completely up to the Holy Sprit imo.
Your post reads that the following is ‘Not true”....
.....**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. **
Ok...then how would you respond to the following......??
...” Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity... (and apply her reasoning).... then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. ........In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don’t...... But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?
What a conundrum!
That assertion is a non-sequitur. Understanding scripture is paramount for all Christians. That does not have any relevance as to whether or not a magisterium is needed.
To not engage in Catholic bashing, as you put it, would mean that no one should engage in Protestant bashing, either. And both of those things mean that no one can contend for any doctrine at all, that they hold to.
What one has to do in that case is simply say (with no Catholic bashing and no Protestant bashing) is that “truth” is merely a “choice” for someone to determine for themselves and doesn’t apply to anyone else. Someone else can “choose truth” which only applies to them, period. We all have “our own truth” that applies uniquely to each one of us, and not necessarily to the next person.
When you say you should not bash Catholics, and you should not bash Protestants (and any number of other religious doctrines from other systems) ... that’s what you get ... POST-MODERNISM ... truth is only what you see it is for yourself. And Post-Modernism is also what contributes to the idea that homosexuality is simply something for someone to choose for themselves, and that is “their truth” even while it may not be your truth.
It also leads to the idea that we should not criticize other religions, either ... like Islam. No matter what “we” think is wrong with Islam, when we engage in this idea that truth only exists in the eye of the beholder, and it is not ABSOLUTE, then we must respect all other choices as just as valid as our own ... that’s POST-MODERNISN which has infected our society (and the whole world).
Instead, I say — BASH AWAY — because I don’t believe POST-MODERNISM is valid!
Have at it!
All Catholics cannot be put in one category to be bashed.
Likewise, all Protestants cannot be put in one category to be bashed.
Simple enough for me.
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.