Posted on 06/17/2014 4:24:37 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Without the Roman Catholic Church there would no Bible for you to read. Why not give credit where credit is due. Or does the hatred run so deep you can’t acknowledge historical fact that a 5th grader can look up.
You know, today’s sermon was about the Good Samaritan. What is it that defines the Christian’s obligations to one’s neighbor? It is compassion, of course. In these debates we see a great deal of passion, but that is not COMpassion, a feeling WITH someone else. Jesus had compassion, even on those who did not fully understand His work and mission.
What troubles me is here, after all this open debate, you still resort to accusations of hatred, when you absolutely must know it is compassion that drives us to share the true Gospel with you. We want everyone to know the joy of liberty in Christ, redemption, forgiveness, peace, and joy of the Holy Spirit. How can you equate that to hatred? I do not understand it. Even if you thought we were wrong (which you obviously do), wouldn’t you still be obligated to “love your enemy?” And wouldn’t that love demand fair treatment, making it wrong to falsely accuse us of hatred, when it is really love that drives us?
As to your argument, it has been conclusively refuted here repeatedly, and not out of hatred, but out of a love for truth, and for people who need to know the truth. God had already provided His people Israel with the “oracles of God,” the record of God speaking to humanity concerning His plan of redemption, well before there was a Roman See (unless you wish to say the Jews were Catholic). Certainly God Himself added to that body of truth with the apostolic writings, and all the church of God, the truly [c]atholic (”universal”) ecclesia (”called out ones”) had long recognized those writings centuries before the Roman See had risen to assert itself.
So no, we have the Bible, not because Rome decided to jump on the bandwagon in recognizing Scripture, but because God Himself moved holy men to write down His words, for the benefit of all the faithful, the extravagant claims of Johnny-come-latelies like the Roman Officium notwithstanding.
Plenty of verses state that we are justified by faith. And there are specific verses that state that it is NOT by works.
However, if you choose to ignore them, there will be no convincing you.
Well, then, I guess the early Catholic church lied then when it put in the Bible that Catholics take credit for that ALL Scripture was God breathed.
Now we have Catholics saying that the CHURCH gave us the Bible.
So which version of church history out of the church that never changes, is correct?
Looks like some words of Jesus are more binding on Catholics than others.
Every man his own pope as they pick and choose what words of Jesus to listen to.
Yes, let’s do. God gave us scripture. In that scripture we are told that He would preserve His word. May I remind you that God used Judas, Balaam’s donkey and Herod to promote His will? Taking credit away from God will not turn out well for Catholics.
Well put!
And those “Holy men” were Catholic. And it was a Catholic pope that canonized the Bible. Catholic, not pentacostal, not baptist, not memonite, not mormans, but Catholic.
If not for Catholics you would have never heard the Word of God. The Bible exists because the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. End of story.
Indeed, for by the same cultic measure,
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:3-6)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
And more. Once again a RC, which must engage in all sorts of egregious extrapolation in order to justify such nonexistent things in Scripture as prayer to departed saints in Heaven, when faced with what refutes them, resorts to the standard arrogant, haughty elitist vindictive indignation, and bombastic argument by out-rage, and to acting like one of the cultic simpletons who insist texts such as Jn. 17:3 refutes the Trinity, and despise careful analysis.
None of which is not surprising since you assert your views are 100% scriptural because you are a Catholic. If she and you do say so yourself, as she is her own law, while your superficiality implicitly reproves historical scholarship of your own church which has wrestled with these texts. But then again you evidence you are more SSPX anyway, holding virtually all baptized Prots as not even being Christians, and lost unless they convert to Rome, and seem to long for the days when Rome could use the sword of men, as in the Inquisitions, but this time via the RC monarchy you advocate. For indeed, killing men who theologically dissented from Rome was doing what was best for them, yet the knowledge of human virtue originated exclusively in the Church, and all rich people must essentially end their days in a monastery to be saved.
You flack here and blithe bull-headed dismissal of fuller examination is a testimony to what happens when objective examination that is rejected in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching.
Moreover, I have already engage you in extensive debates, and given you plenty of opportunity to engage in reason-able civil exchange, but you have amply disqualified yourself as one who will, and evidenced you are one who is in bondage to defend Rome no matter what.
The reality is that RCs as among the most manifestly lost souls in Christendom, from her few cultic devotees to the typical liberals that make up her majority , and which is my main concern, while often- insolent RC elitist arrogance and wresting of Scripture RCs must engage in is an arguments against Rome. To which you have added.
You have thus now basically made it to the unworthy to engage list, though you were given lots of time. Bye.
And if anyone can be accused to writing tomes (and run-on sentences) it is Rome.
(our exchange over “priest” versus elder” comes to mind).
Indeed. Somehow the fact that the Holy Spirit not once titles them “hiereus” or “archiereus” or describes them engaging in any unique sacrificially function carries no real weight in comparison with the Catholic etymological fallacy based on imposed functional equivalence.
take the time to read them and interact with the substantial arguments he presents, ,
Oh that has been engaged in, exhibiting such unreasonable bound-to-defend Rome responses that i suspected the RC was trying to waste our time, and or gaining time off purgatory. Which i still suspected may be behind the goading. Thus the unworthy-to-respond to list.
So .. did you even actually read what I wrote? Are you saying Isaiah was Catholic? Really?
Projection.....
Phase 3: post scripture quotes that reflect the Catholic doctrine as if they support the Protestant heresy of justification by faith alone.
“We have been justified by faith” (Romans 5:1) does not contradict “we are not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).
Generally, there is room for discussing the scripture or the history of the Church at some length, or write books that elevate the spirituality. On hand however we have a simple fact that the Apostle wrote a definitive sentence and then Luther wrote a negation of it and Luther thinks he could get away with it. Great many people then went with Luther and abandoned the Apostle. Why? They cannot explain it plainly. There is always obfuscation of the content of the second part of James 2. Obfuscation cannot be succinct; it is the first sign of someone obfuscating that he takes time to explain. On an obscure verse I can understand the need for lengthy exegesis; on the plain “X is not by Y alone” there should be no need for any.
Yes. Please ask someone to clue you in on the topic we discuss.
Phase 4: discuss something else, thunderously.
The topic on hand is that the Scripture says "we are not justified by faith alone". Then a charlatan comes along and says that we are. That is all there is to it.
debunking = whitewash
I am at work so I cannot offer a lengthy response, but a great deal of the length of Daniel’s response is in showing how even thoughtful Catholics have struggled to reconcile what superficially appear to be contradictory expressions, Paul version James, when we know for a fact the Holy Spirit inspired the writings of both. When I first was converted and read through the Bible for the first time, I encountered a number of passages that seemed to be contradictions, this among them, and it took some thought and lengthy analysis to find a solution. But there always was one.
I dont think the solution being offered here is too burdensome to the prima facie sense of either writer. Paul is speaking in strict forensic, legal terms, I.e., how does our legal status before God go from “condemned” to “forgiven,” to which the answer must ever be faith, not works, lest we fall into the heresy of Pelagianism.
Whereas James, whose entire tone was pragmatic and NOT forensic, describes what accompanies saving faith, and neither Luther nor any knowledgeable Protestant would deny that saving faith does not come to the party alone, but brings its most intimate companion, righteousness that flows from a heart of love for God and neighbor. Thus Paul describes the legal effect, and James the pragmatic effect, of faith suffcient to save lost sinners.
So this is not hard, or obscure. It is a mature reading of the text, which by its nature insists on a reconciliation, but once it is found, is clear and simple enough for a child to understand.
“The topic on hand is that the Scripture says “we are not justified by faith alone”. Then a charlatan comes along and says that we are. That is all there is to it”.
Precisely the reason sola scriptura crumbles under scrutiny.
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.