Posted on 09/02/2016 8:44:44 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Pope Francis is imploring Catholics to confess their sins against the environment, calling the degradation of the climate a “sin against God.”
In his message marking the World day of Prayer for the Care of Creation on Thursday, the pontiff said climate change is caused in part by human activity, leads to extreme weather and disproportionately affects the least advantaged around the world.
He added that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
HA ha HA!
Jesus was asked 'specific' questions.
HE gave 'SPECIFIC' answers.
Like THIS little give and take recorded in the Book that Rome assembled:
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Huh?
Where is the EVIDENCE that Luther REMOVED anything?
"They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them."
Job 38:3
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
Good luck!
***Where did God tell Martin Luther to remove certain books from the Bible?***
Same reason JEROME wanted to remove them. The original Geneva and KJV bibles both had those books in them. Everyone should read those books and see why they are so irrelevant. About as authoritative as the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, which is in the oldest Greek texts, but no one accepts it.
Yep, that is clearly the table of contents of the Bible.
Maybe you didn't understand the question.
The sooner this sorry excuse for a pope is gone the better. If he is YOUR idea of a pope, that's all anyone needs to know about Clive.
Maybe Frankie needs to be consistent and insist on being recycled into Soylent Green instead of buried in sacred ground as the "patron saint" of mindless marxism.
Stopped clock....twice a day.
A mere assertion which can only be sustained under the premise that only what the Roman church says regarding what Scripture, history and tradition can be correct in any challange to the contrary. For indeed, 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.
Thus we have the classic recourse of no less than Cardinal Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus it does not matter what historical research finds, of which even Catholic authors provided evidence against RC papal propaganda, as only what Rome says today is to be accepted as correct, as in cults.
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
The same place vowel marks in the Hebrew OT came from, that of pious men seeking to help readers of wholly inspired Scripture.
The questions for you are,
1. What makes the TOC of the church of Rome 100% correct? Does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean that they are the infallible discerners and teachers of it?
2. If a TOC is such a weighty issue, then why did it take the church of Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to put an end to the scholarly doubts and disagreements over what the TOC should contain?
Where did God say "This is the Bible" ?
Lk. 24:44, in referencing the tripartite OT canon in validating His mission. But the complete Bible which you meant flows from that in principle, in which the very wholly inspired words of God were either directly written (the majority of Scripture) or consequently written after orally speaking them, and which often provided new revelation. In contrary, Rome does not speak as wholly inspired of God in declaring what she says tradition teaches, nor claim to provide new revelation. If you want to claim to be proclaiming the actual word of God as equal with Scripture then you need to be speaking the very wholly inspired words of God.
In addition, why did the Lord only quote OT Scripture, not oral tradition in declaring that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) and as authorative in refuting the religious leaders (Mt. 22, etc.) and in validating His mission to His disciples, and opened up their minds to Scripture? (Lk. 24:44,45) Other sources, even pagan ones, could be quoted by inspired believers as providing some Truth, but it was the wholly inspired written word of God that oral preaching of the word of God was subject to testing by, which itself was wholly inspired of God, not merely correct. And as per OT practice, the mode of preservation for what was binding was by writing. (Ex. 17:14; Dt 17:18; Jer. 30:2; 36:2 Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Where did God tell Martin Luther to remove certain books from the Bible?
The same place He told him to provide these "certain books" in his non-binding Bible as he did as per ancient method, and told Jerome and other so-called "fathers" these certain books were not Scripture proper, and told the church of Rome to anathematize those who dissented from her canon, by a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstaining, a 44% majority. And to remove books other ancient tradition-centric churches hold to. The answer here pertains to questions 1 and 2 above.
These are serious questions. Please give specific answers.
These are serious questions. Please give specific answers.
Consistent with your argument from silence, in the same place that the Lord and or His apostles gave instructions that their wholly inspired words should not be subsequently written by wholly inspired men for preservation ("He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them... -John 14:21), and become the transcendent standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as God did in the foundational OT,
A few questions for you are what mode did God use to preserve His word, and what substantive body of Truth is wholly inspired, and became the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, and to which even apostolic preaching was subject to testing by. And by conflation with additional wholly inspired words (not simply error-free teachings) could be added, if given.
What pope can you claim was or is speaking as wholly inspired word of God in declaring the actual formal word of God (versus "preaching the word" as all the church did in Acts 8:4, that of Scriptural Truths), and even providing new revelation, as the Lord and apostles did?
On what basis can you claim the church of Rome possesses unique ensured but but non-inspired infallibility to autocratically selectively declare oral traditions to be the binding actual word of God?
4)
Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
Answered in previous post.
Where in the Bible do we find that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God?
Which, if speaking of justification in the same sense as Paul is in Rm. 4, is contrary to both Moses (Gn. 15:6) and Paul, who both state that Abraham was counted righteousness by faith, which was before he offered up Issac. But works justify one as being a believer (cf. "I will shew thee my faith by my works," Ja. 2:18), having a complete faith, the issue being whether faith save one whose faith is not such that it effects works, (Ja. 2:14) the answer to which is no, and which Reformers as Luther taught.
And thus, as works evidence one has faith, thus it is those whose faith effect such that are promised salvation. (Rm. 2:13) but the effects of faith are not the cause of justification, as faith purifies the heart, (Acts 15:9) and thus "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Rm. 4:5)
Nor is Paul simply excluding to works of the Law as justificatory, but uses this as it represents the supreme system of justification by actually becoming good enough to be with God, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
So your argument is that there was an indisputable complete canon for 1500 years, or any years concurred on before Trent? And that the maverick Luther did not include disputed books in his Bible?
And that the instruments, discerners and stewards of Holy Writ are the infallible interpreters of it?
Which even fails of the unanimous consent of the fathers, while 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.)
And where in Scripture does leading the people of God and providing and preserving Truth (or anything else you attribute to Peter) require ensured perpetual infallibility of office?
As for Pope Frankie when he authors an Encyclical w/1% of the power and wisdom that Vincenzo Cardinal Pecci(Leo XIII) exhibited in his magisterial Encyclical, Rerum Novarum; I will take him seriously.
So in essence you are as a Protestant, picking choosing what to obey based upon your judgment as to what is valid teaching.
That is why there are divisions. As one poster wryly said, The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
There are two possible models here, and both have at least a superficial consistency.
As my old pastor used to say, “You pay your money and you take your choice.”
One is that a “piece” of the church went wrong and antiquity really IS bearing valid witness against it. Another is that (Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, you pick) is Right and everything else is Wrong.
Ah, yes, radon. I suppose we should get tested.
Thanks for the tip!
No, the Truth (not an argument) is that there were TWO canons of the Old Testament in common usage among Jews and Christians in the early centuries of Christianity.
The narrower of these (the Masoretic Canon) excludes what are called Apocrypha because those who favored the Masoretic Canon doubted that the Apocrypha were the inspired Word of God on such grounds as that they may not have been written in the Holy Land or did not sufficiently reference Torah (the Pentateuch) or similar reasons. The Masoretic Canon was published in Hebrew. Today, the Masoretic Canon is favored by Reformed Christian Churches. Luther preferred the narrower Masoretic Canon for whatever reason.
The more inclusive Canon was the Septuagint developed by Greek speaking Jewish scholars at Alexandria and which included the Apocrypha as the inspired Word of God along with the undisputed books. The Septuagint has always been preferred by the Roman Catholic Church (including all churches in communion with Rome) and by the Eastern Orthodox Churches whose differences with Roe are on matters other than Scripture. Some differences between the Canons are the Septuagint's inclusion of First and Second Maccabees, (and the Eastern Orthodox inclusion of third and Fourth Maccabees), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, certain parts of Esther and Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
The Septuagint was compiled by the end of the second century B.C. It was the preferred canon of those who spoke Greek including many Jews who were not also Catholic and was compiled by 70 Jewish scholars. The Dead Sea Scrolls (apparently collected and stored by Jews (not Catholics and certainly not reformed Christians) roughly contemporary to Jesus Christ's life on earth, include much from both canons.
The differences between the two canons are probably on 5% of the total and undeserving of the extravagant attention they get.
A remaining question: Did Luther choose the Masoretic Canon over the Septuagint because his religious beliefs disagreed with SOME aspects of SOME of the Apocrypha. That question's answer must come from those far more scholarly than I. Luther clearly had serious problems with the New Testament Epistle of James (on the matter of the necessity of works) but he did not presume to exclude the Epistle of James from the New Testament. That leads me, at least, to credit Luther with integrity and to note that he simply chose the Masoretic Canon for other likely respectable reasons.
You are more scholarly than many of us but: scholarly and wrong is less right than less scholarly and right. You are also generally tussling beyond FR with the 20 centuries of quite scholarly Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and the quite scholarly tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Things start to get REALLY interesting when these different pieces start damning the others to hell over the differences. And yes this is a Protestant issue as well as an Orthodox issue and a Catholic issue.
Ironically, the chaos seems to point up Jesus the Savior as being MORE important than “which piece of the church”, not LESS. Somebody might walk into a congregation that is less than Perfectly Right, and yet be laid hold of by the Savior and blessed while worshiping there and eternally saved in heaven. C. S. Lewis, at least, attempted to find a bridge to this gap in “The Great Divorce” by having his characters from heaven say “We’ve all been wrong! Now we can start living.”
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.