Posted on 11/05/2018 1:55:29 PM PST by boatbums
The ones now; or the early ones?
Opinion of whether your current pope is a valid one or not.
Your RULES say you MUST obey him; right?
Which is simply more parroting of a polemic which is refuted in principle. For your argument is really that since souls can come to the wrong conclusions based on what they see Scripture consisting of or meaning, then they need an infallible historically valid magisterium to surely tell them this. Catholic theology even holds that one cannot discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her, which must tell them.
Yet as said, the NT church began contrary to this, with souls both assuredly correctly ascertaining men and writings of God as being so, in dissent (as concerns men) from the historically valid authoritative magisterium. The latter implicitly affirmed the body of Scripture which manifestly been had established as authoritative and thus abundantly invoked by the Lord and His disciples, but they were not infallible.
However, based on your reasoning, since some souls interpreted Scripture differently, the they needed to submit to the historically valid authoritative magisterium, versus coming to such conclusions as that John the Baptist was "a prophet indeed." (Mark 11:32).
Also, if one cannot assuredly ascertain what is of God (such as what Scripture consists of and means) apart from submission to Rome, then one cannot convert to Rome until he first does. And while souls can come to manifestly wrong conclusions of Scripture, oneness Pentecostals are contend against by those who affirm the Triune nature of God and other fundamentals of which we both agree on, which the vast majority of evangelicals do, based on Scriptural substantiation, which is the very basis for ascertaining Truth that you attack.
Meanwhile, cults typically are based on the RC premise of leadership possessing a level of ensured veracity above that which it written about such. (1 Co. 4:6) And while this can result in greater unity if enforced (such as by the Watchtower Society), it is not the Scriptural means of unity.
And in reality, as said and ignored, the fact is that what the grand Interpreter says is itself subject to variant interpretations. Under a Moses or men as Peter and Paul, rebels can be executed, and otherwise disfellowship is to result from impenitent known sinning -which Rome is grossly negligent in - but the basis for assurance of Truth cannot be based on the ensured veracity of leadership, as it is to be in Rome.
It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Therefore, you have unity as well as divisions under both models for ascertaining Truth, but only one is Scriptural, that of the validity of Truth claims being based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the church began.
This does means competing Truth claims can results, but rather than resting upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), it requires overcoming error with Scriptural Truth. Which is why we concur with Catholics about many core Truths, and effectually contend against cults, more so than RCs./
As much as you want the assurance of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, the reality is that you cannot escape the problem of the need for interpretation, and of personal judgment (which Catholicism depends on converts even making), and of the basis for such not being based on the above premise, by on the basis of evidential warrant. Which requires the magisterial office to be honest, versus pulling off scams like making belief in the Assumption required .
As a RC even stated.,
If we imagine Pius IX, as he promulgated the Immaculate Conception, as thinking in his own mind, “Boy, what a load of crap I’m putting over on these stooges!” I’d claim that if the proper criteria for infallibility were met, the doctrine is infallible, anyway, regardless of the Pope’s interior disposition, just as a sacrament is valid regardless of the status of the priest who celebrates it. http://vox-nova.com/2013/08/05/why-do-you-trust-the-magisterium/
Which, with its principal, is refuted above, by the grace of God. But if you want to argue that an infallible magisterium is essential for correctly assuredly knowing if writings are of God, and their meaning, and that being the official historical magisterial discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation makes them infallible, then go ahead. If not cease from Catholic compelled contrivances.
Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. - CANON 69The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them.
Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning. This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us. - CANONs 67,68; https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp
Luther adds his own complaints. But again, it was only my opinion that Jewish culture wass such that it left itself open to attack, and if I was mistaken, then that is good. However, my argument that one can criticize culture with not condemning the same as race is valid.
No, and there was a reason Smith invoked and abused Scripture just as the devil did to teach error, for the devil knows where the power is. You could not have either the Qur'an or the BOM if there was not a genuine word of God they counterfeited.
And as with any new purported Truth claim, the veracity of such is subject to examination by the the established and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative word of God.
Thus they very "feeling" text Mormonic teaching invoked, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures" (Luke 24:32) actually refers to the Scriptures, nor the Mormonic ones which seeks to sound like it.
Moreover, even the veracity of the preaching of the very apostles was subject to testing by Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
Thus the answer to your ?, "On what basis would you, daniel, coming 2000 years later make a judgement call on this book? Just on feeling as did Joseph Smith?," is no, but based on its complimentary conformity/conflation with the established Word, as well as its anointing. For the word of God is not simply True, but powerful, as per Hebrews 4:12.
Thus writings as well as men of God were ascertained and established as authoritative before your church ever presumed it was essential for this (and if certitude by her is important, she did not indisputably settle the canon until after the the death of Luther , over 1400 years after the last book was penned).
And thus while conciliar decrees can be warranted and helpful, and the place of the magisterial office is affirmed, yet the reason for our near universal enduring acceptance of the canon of Scripture is essentially due to their unique enduring qualities and attestation among those who were not compelled to read them all.
Now you are arguing for RC Purgatory, which even EOs argue is not of Tradition, versus arguing for submission to the RC magisterium as being the basis for assurance of doctrine, and thus no division.
However, your above attempt by isolationist eisegesis is simply not what Scripture teaches, and as this has been shown , and the real issue is that the refuted premise of ensured perpetual infallibility of the RC magisterium being the basis for assurance of this and all doctrines, since only what it decrees Scripture both consists of and means is authoritative, then i am not going to task my stiff arthritic fingers with reproving it here, and add to thr hours it took to respond to your specious polemics.
Apt description of argument by assertion, based on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome. 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.
And let's not forget their contention that it is the Holy Scriptures which authorizes their presumed infallible authority...and that presumed authority with which they can determine what is or is not Divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures.
It makes you look afraid of something.
Actually it has been argued by RCs that Scripture gets its authority from the church, and in Catholic theology that one cannot even discover the contents of sacred Scripture apart from faith in her, and thus souls are not to be persuaded to place this faith in Rome by appeal to Scripture as Scripture since they are held to need "The Church®" to recognize what writings are of God (and thus their codependency on her).
Instead, appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as reliable historical document, by which the souls is to see warrant for submission of faith to said Church, and thereby know what is of God.
Which means that while one cannot ascertain what writings are of God, they can ascertain what church is of God. However, when he sees that Catholic distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) then Catholics often argue the historical absurdity, "we gave you the Bible...we know what it means, not you.)
Where did you get this from?
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.