Posted on 02/03/2012 6:31:03 AM PST by NYer
That is not, and never was, my claim!
My statement is you must be protected from error to claim someone else's interpretation IS in error.
Why is it so hard for you to get the fact you can't say someone else is wrong without saying you yourself are right?
That is not, and never was, my claim! My statement is you must be protected from error to claim someone else's interpretation IS in error.
Why is it so hard for you to get the fact you can't say someone else is wrong without saying you yourself are right?
I affirm that, but why can't you see that your statement was not only that the person is claiming inerrancy, but which you equated with what Rome engages in, which is claiming they are right based upon her claim of assured infallibility?
Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
We do not claim Rome is in error simply because saying someone else is wrong means saying they are right(!), but because she presumes a special charism of infallibility which precludes that she can be wrong, regardless of the evidence, esp from the assuredly infallible authority of Scripture.
The Scriptures require believers to make moral reprove error, (Eph. 4:11) but it is the bases for it that is the issue.
And again, it is accepted that saying someone is wrong means saying you are right, but it is not the same thing as claiming inerrancy after the manner of Rome. However, if you want to imagine we simply object to the former and not the latter, and not deal with that, then no further exchange seems unnecessary.
This much is true!
Let me clarify this early morning "double exposure:"
The Scriptures require believers to make moral reprove error, (Eph. 4:11) but it is the bases for it that is the issue.
Corrected and rephrased, the Scriptures require believers to make moral judgments and reprove error, (Eph. 4:11) but it is the basis for such that remains the issue.
It is also understood that Rome does not claim to define doctrine irregardless regardless of evidence, but that her claim to infallibility precludes that evidence could prove her wrong, and that assurance of the infallibility of her decrees does not rest upon the weight of scriptural warrant.
Simple. The Church has a scriptural mandate that the individual does not. It's no more complicated than that.
Wow, you really need to take a deep breath before you write.
Show your last two posts to anyone you know, and I defy them to make sense of whatever it is you’re trying to get across.
You mean,
“the Scriptures require believers to make moral judgments and reprove error, (Eph. 4:11) but it is the basis for such that remains the issue.”
It is also understood that Rome does not claim to define doctrine irregardless [edit] of evidence, but that her claim to infallibility precludes that evidence could prove her wrong, and that assurance of the infallibility of her decrees does not rest upon the weight of scriptural warrant.
“And again, it is accepted that saying someone is wrong means saying you are right, but it is not the same thing as claiming inerrancy after the manner of Rome. However, if you want to imagine we simply object to the former and not the latter, and not deal with that, then no further exchange seems unnecessary.”
Sorry if it is not yet understandable to you now.
The issue goes deeper, as the mandate to discern and teach truth is one thing, and the basis upon which it does so is another.
And under the premise that the church is the supreme authority you have different churches competing with each other for the title of the one true church, based on the premise of assured infallibility. And which (again) in the case of Rome effectively rests upon her own deceleration to be so, infallibly claiming she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, and which does not necessarily render the reasoning and arguments behind them to infallible.
And which is not what the Scriptural mandate to discern and teach truth presumes, but which is established upon Scripture being supreme and providing the warrant and attestation by which truth claims are established.
Dude, your prose is just about impenetrable. If there is anything making “further exchange unnecessary: that’s it.
Seriously... “not yet understandable to you now?”
Is that suppose to mean “misunderstood?”
Perhaps it would be easier going if you stopped trying to continually drag Rome into the discussion. I used it as a simple contrast while making a point about fallacious logic, but you insist on making it the topic.
I’d really like to respond to this hash, but I just can’t figure out what you’re trying to say....
No, your statement was in response to and in the context of Rome versus SS types, in which you equated MM making an assertion to that of what we criticize Rome for doing, as if she was claiming inerrancy in like manner, and as if we think Rome is wrong simply for making truth claims (many of which we agree with) rather than her premise of assured infallibility being the problem;
In which whatever statements the universal and ordinary magisterium speaks on faith and morals to all the church are assuredly infallible, due to a special charism given to them in making such, and thus she cannot possibly be wrong.
In contrast, this claim to assured infallibility cannot be the basis for our statements, as such depend upon Scriptural warrant for their establishment or correction, Scripture alone being assuredly infallible.
And thus we seek to persuade souls by manifestation of the truth, with Scripture being the assured word of God, and by such souls can realize Scriptural assurance - not that we are protected by any possibility error as per the criteria of Rome.
And if assurance of truth can only be had by assent to an magisterial office with assured infallibility, then no one could have been sure of anything before Rome, as Scripture know of no such office of men. Nor did Christ have the sanction of those who sat i the seat of Moses, but His authority was established upon Scriptural warrant with the manner of attestation it provides for.
That is all.
Then i guess that's enough.
If God was, according to your way of thinking, unable to clearly and adequately express Himself in the Bible, what makes you think He is capable of doing so through the Magesterium?
OUCH!!!!!!!!!
Like Pope Francis?
Whoa! We just went for a journey in the way-back machine!
I just noticed the date myself.
However, the point is well made.
Yes it is.
If God didn’t mean what He was saying
Why didn’t He say what He meant!
So I’m supposed to trust a corrupt, immoral Catholic clergy to clarify for me what God meant when He breathed out Scripture?
I don’t think so.
They don’t follow God’s word themselves. They have no business telling other people how to live it.
Look a that list Hellooo!!!!
Hello to old friends!!!
All you hardened soldiers for the Lord Jesus!
Old Salts!
.
I’m grateful for each puncture to my ego you friends have given me.
.
Anybody feeling that the Lord’s appearance to take his Bride is right around the corner???
.
I’m feeling like I need to read the words of our Good Master on my knees and examine my self in-light of what I find.
.
Do you remember when they were transfigured on the mount? With serious past and future men of God present, (the “Old” and the “New” guys), God breaks the cloud, puts one spotlight on Jesus, and says “Listen to Him.”
.
The OT & NT are the two Witnesses. The Gospels are the Word.
.
I ramble...
.
My dearest to you all!!!
Fire at will.
Ah yes, the magicsteeringthem ... satan loves the vehicle. I wonder how many / what percentage are pedophiles and or homosexual devaints sitting on the magicsteeringthem?
Really?
I say if we have to some other dudes also far removed from the original Greek and Hebrew to explain it for me, then I am probably DOOMED.
I suspect that the oft discussed "Call no man father" verse should REALLY be translated: Call no man cousin.
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.