[2harddrive]

I believe in the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Pope when speaking Ex Cathedra on matters of Faith and Morals.

[Gamecock]

Some thoughts on folks crossing the Tiber.

[vladimir998]

Horton?

Yeah, I remember when he got crushed in a debate on sola scriptura in front of a Protestant audience at an Evangelical church. Even that church admitted Horton lost.

Here’s the debate: https://store.patrickmadrid.com/what-still-divides-us-debate-mp3/

Horton was so embarrassed about his loss that he only played the Protestant side of the audio on his radio show.

[verga]

This is the same Catholic Church you trusted to infallibly order the canon of the NT.

[Mach9]

“As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”

Now there’s an authority! His most ardent adherents were the first and last American witch-burners (outside Islam, of course). No, that surely was never his his intention; and no, he wasn’t wrong on everything. Just a whole lot more than an already 1600-year old Roman church. And, just an aside, his name wasn’t actually Calvin; it was Chauvin. The OED doesn’t go into it; but the Puritains could have written the book on chauvinists long before Nicolas Chauvin was born. Just sayin’.

[count-your-change]

“Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.”

That being so would lead to the conclusion that any doctrine, however long held and cherished, must be examined by the light of Scripture. Any teaching of truth would also have to agree with other Scriptural truths or it would be drifting away from that infallible standard.

And such doctrines or teachings would by necessity be understandable to the instructed. One could not be “sanctified by the truth” and at the same time believe falsehood.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The gospel of free grace “

Grace isn’t free - it cost the Savior his life.

It is offered completely apart from works and based entirely upon Christ’s eternal life, laid down to pay for sin.

[D-fendr]

I believe the Reformers quickly found a doctrine of literal sola scriptura insufficient. Hence their creeds, confessions and their authors and editors. The Reformed equivalent of tradition and Magisterium.

[Petrosius]

How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scripture.

The fallacy here is to assume that the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" is true in the first place. Even without recourse to Catholic teaching I find the Protestant position ridiculous and contrary to the Scripture.

Another fallacy is that Catholics do not honestly derive their teaching from Scripture. Any familiarity with Catholic theology would show that this untrue. So when faced with a Catholic interpretation of Scripture and a Protestant one, each claiming to be derived from Scripture, how is one to know the truth? Without the charism of infallibility granted to the Church by Christ himself, we would be hopelessly left with conflicting interpretation that could never claim greater authority than the other.

[daniel1212]

Gamecock and brethren, you should know by now that,

• If Rome infallibly defines that she is assuredly infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) criteria, which means that her decree that she is infallible, is infallible, then she is assuredly incontestable infallible, and all the argumentation in the world cannot impugn her autocratic declaration.

• You should also know that being the stewards and interpreters of Holy Writ, and being the recipient its promises of Divine presence, guidance, and perpetuation and having historical decent means you have assuredly infallibility, just as Israel's leadership did. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.)

• And that such is needed for writings to be established as Divine Scripture, and thus none were until the church of Rome came along, and who thus also provided an infallible, indisputable complete canon over 1400 years after the last book was written.

• And that such affirmed magisterium disallows the authority of an Itinerant Preacher who has not their sanction, (Mk. 11:28-33) who established His claims upon Scripture and the power of God it testifies to, (Jn. 10: 37; 5:36,39; Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:44, etc.) and from reproving those by Scripture who sit in the seat of Moses, (Mk. 7:3-16), much less God preserving faith and fulfilling promises by raising up men from without the official magisterium to take their place. For that would create division, and could allow the same to happen to them in order for Scriptural truth and the people of God to be preserved.

• Moreover, you should know that Sola Scriptura cannot be found in Scripture, even though it is abundantly evidenced to have been the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and thus evidences and provides for writings being established as Scripture based upon their Divine qualities and attestation (thus most of Scripture was established as such by the time of Christ), as well as (according to principle) recognizing an absence of any like unto ot cessation

• Furthermore, you should also know that rather than establishment and assurance of truth claims coming from Scripture and the attestation it promised, (Acts 2:14:-36; 4:33; 5:12; 7:1-53; 13:16-41; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) as that requires fallible human reasoning, such assurance can only come from the assuredly infallible magisterium, which has assuredly infallibly declared its teaching is protected from that infirmity.

• Finally, you should know that since you have no assuredly infallible interpreter for your supreme authority (Scripture), then you have divisions, even if overall there is a core unity, while Catholics really have Unity, even though RCs lack an assuredly infallible interpreter for their supreme authority, resulting in confusion even as to how many infallible pronouncements there are, and the meaning of both infallible and non infallible teachings, and who show greater disunity in many basic practices and moral views than evangelical type churches. And that Catholicism has many formal and informal divisions, the difference being one of degrees, based upon their infallible interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and History. See also 355 of 361
and Disagreements under different models of supreme authorityl

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[CatholicTim]

I came into the Church kicking and fighting after 46 years as an Evangelical. However, once I got in I was amazed and embarrassed. Confession has allowed Christ to transform my life. The Eucharist has allowed me to truly worship God for the first time in my life.

Everything the Church teaches is reasonable. Mary was a human but given the grace to be a holy tabernacle for God incarnate. Why is it such a scandal to ask those in heaven to pray for us?

Apostolic authority is all over the place in the New Testament. Matthew 16, Matthew 18, Luke 10:16, Acts Chapter 1, Acts Chapter 15 reads like an Ecumenical council to me.

The Catholic Church is the Church that has kept the ancient tradition going back to the apostles. Come on in. The water is great.

[boatbums]

Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word.

This is a crucial rule of thumb for ANY self-proclaimed Christian church. If what they preach about the Gospel is not according to the clear words of Scripture, then everything else is suspect also. They may even have many of the other doctrines of the faith correct, but if they stray away from the gospel of salvation by grace through faith, then they are preaching an accursed gospel. Just as this article brings out, Paul placed HIMSELF under the same yardstick. That says to me that what Scripture says is the plan of salvation IS what God says it is and no one can pervert it and stay true.

That was a good article and I saved it to my Favorites. I expect the hounds will be howling over it soon. This may be another 1000+ thread for you! ;o)

[Biblical Calvinist]

Dr. Michael Horton has hit it out of the park again! Horton is a treasure, for sure. Thanks for posting this article, Gamecock..

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This explains why there is over 250 Protestant Churches in the US.