Posted on 03/27/2014 12:43:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
You still ignore the scriptural reference - You still can’t get a ‘whom’ from a ‘which’ in your interpretation.
That would be a sola scriptura effect. So, no. Your reply doesn't address the problem with your interpretation.
Is it really as difficult as you try to contort it into, misquoting along the way? Do you understand the difference between truth and God is Truth?
So another vote for the First Baptist Church of Ft. Worth?
:)
Paul wrote to congregations only.
To say otherwise is to revise scripture.
There is no corporation of men that represents Yeshua’s Assembly/Congregation. Yeshua is his Assembly’s only authority.
Scripture, history, evidence. You think it was Presbyterian?
Yeah, congregations of the Church. Paul had authority, the Church had a hierarchy. It was not and is not a protestant idea.
There is no corporation
So calling the Church "corporation" means the visible Church did not and does not exist? Sorry, that's a pretty weak argument.
That ‘church’ you tout will have a grand meeting in the lake that burns.
.
“Is it really as difficult as you try to contort it into, misquoting along the way? Do you understand the difference between truth and God is Truth?”
Oh, I’m sorry, you said:
“Christ/God IS Truth”
which I paraphrased as “Christ is truth”. I don’t see any material difference, so what is your point exactly?
“That would be a sola scriptura effect.”
You’re the one who has taken it upon himself to tell the rest of us what Scripture agrees with or disagrees with. I think it’s a fair question to ask how you know what Scripture thinks.
“So, no. Your reply doesn’t address the problem with your interpretation.”
I’ve already told you that I don’t see a problem, so what is there for me to address?
Which cannot be purgatory.
but the plain fact is that the ancient Church prayed for relief of suffering of the departed
The plain fact is that was a later development, as said, while the ancient NT Church nor believers in the OT never are shown praying for relief of suffering of the departed (nor is 2Tim. 1:18 a prayer for that), or even addressing any one in Heaven but the Lord in the hundreds of Bible prayers , and are only instructed to pray to Him in Heaven, God's throne.
But as to the matter of the Council of Florence, there does seem some debate as to whether the Council as a whole was infallible or merely some portion of it. (Herein, the American-written Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is virtually useless,
I will remember the latter when a RC invokes it, but that is just oner more thing RCs disagree about, and i do not go along with your dismissal, and find the CE unmatched as free online extensive resource, and which RCs use as evidence, and i think some RCs disparage it mainly because it has provided documented refutation of their undocumented assertions.
I only brought up the Council of Florence as a correction to my previous statement that the Catholic canon was established as Trent.
And why should i not challenge that? And i linked to other sources that confirm that, even a Trad. RC apologist.
Yes, the Council of Florence suggests anyone separated from Rome is bound for Hell.
It does not suggest or mean to suggest, but " "firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics" are lost "unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Quite an imagination that is much the opposite.
And the Council of Trent, which is absolutely infallible anathematizes any Protestant.
Actually, this is another issue in which RC apologist can disagree, unless the high hierarchy makes it clear, Dave Armstrong debates the issue, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/catholic-understanding-of-anathemas-of.html, while David Mac writes quite a bit on this and states,
“In particular, the statement that anathemas were "put on all non-Catholics" is incorrect. In fact, the anathemas were only put on Catholics. You had to be a "card carrying Catholic" in order to "qualify." Anathemas never applied to non-Catholics. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communionicated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of Anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.” http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/anathemas.htm
The Council of Florence meant to bind the conscience of anyone under the authority of the Orthodox-cum-Catholic bishops so as to prevent schism.
Primarily, but pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics is broader. And there are more like it.
As someone who finds much favorable to Orthodox spirituality through first-hand experience, the absurdity of the Orthodox’s version of history is quite saddening:
I am sure the feeling is mutual, but I will let the two debate it here on this aspect. Getting too late here.
Just to clarify my own statements:
I cited the Council of Trent’s anathematization of all Protestants as an example of the necessity of context, not to assert that it is infallible doctrine that all Protestants go to Hell. The Council of Trent uses Protestant to refer to people who abandoned the Catholic Church in which they were raised to join those making war against it. That doesn’t describe modern Catholics.
1. Anathematization is a legal process, the exclusion of one from the Church. While it implies the denial of
So wait: Is it your opinion that non-Christians *do* go to Heaven? Because whereas Catholics believe in various hells, most Protestants believe hell is always a place of eternal torment. (I can’t even tell if you’re Orthodox just picking up Protestant arguments, or if you’re Protestant.)
>> I will remember the latter when a RC invokes it, but that is just oner more thing RCs disagree about, and i do not go along with your dismissal, and find the CE unmatched as free online extensive resource, and which RCs use as evidence, and i think some RCs disparage it mainly because it has provided documented refutation of their undocumented assertions. <<
Frankly, 99.99999% of the time it’s cited on FR, it’s cited by a Protestant trying to use it as a Catholic “admission” of Protestantism, unaware that its purpose was not at all apologetic and simply reflected the general understanding of history in 1913 mid-America. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered a Catholic citing it.
I have no interest in getting into a proof-texting war (since I follow the interpretation of the Scriptures of the ancient Christians who knew what they were talking about.) But just to clarify my own statements:
I cited the Council of Trent’s anathematization of all Protestants as an example of the necessity of context, not to assert that it is infallible doctrine that all Protestants go to Hell*. The Council of Trent uses Protestant to refer to people who abandoned the Catholic Church in which they were raised to join those making war against it. That doesn’t describe modern Catholics.
(*. Anathematization is a legal process, the exclusion of one from the Church. While it implies the denial of vital sacraments, it is not, itself, a condemnation.)
But also, I just wanted to check on something you wrote: Is it your opinion that non-Christians *do* go to Heaven? Because whereas Catholics believe in various hells, most Protestants believe hell is always a place of eternal torment. (I can’t even tell if you’re Orthodox just picking up Protestant arguments, or if you’re Protestant.)
>> I will remember the latter when a RC invokes it, but that is just oner more thing RCs disagree about, and i do not go along with your dismissal, and find the CE unmatched as free online extensive resource, and which RCs use as evidence, and i think some RCs disparage it mainly because it has provided documented refutation of their undocumented assertions. <<
Frankly, 99.99999% of the time it’s cited on FR, it’s cited by a Protestant trying to use it as a Catholic “admission” of Protestantism, unaware that its purpose was not at all apologetic and simply reflected the general understanding of history in 1913 mid-America. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered a Catholic citing it.
>> but that is just one more thing RCs disagree about <<
Seriously? You write that as if one would expect that RCs think they shouldn’t disagree about the utility of an encyclopedia.
FWIW, the Catholic Encyclopedia does bear a Nihil Obstat, merely meaning nothing in it is contrary to Catholic moral doctrine (at least in any way the 1913 Bishop of Minneapolis managed to pick up on.) Not even the pope’s version of history is infallible.
Your argument was from Holy Scripture also. So, back atcha.
what is there for me to address?
The same problem with relative pronouns in the text.
If you'll compare your whole statement with what I actually said, you can see it. I don't think there's the requisite desire for accuracy, so it's most likely a lost effort on my part.
The Church I tout is the one that the gates of hell will not prevail against.
No, the Assembly against which the gates of hell will not prevail is Yeshua’s invisible congregation, which may not contain any members of the RCC.
“If you’ll compare your whole statement with what I actually said, you can see it.”
Did you catch that I was summarizing statements from more people on the thread than just you?
“Your argument was from Holy Scripture also. So, back atcha.”
I don’t remember telling you that Scripture “agreed” or “disagreed” with someone’s interpretation. The point is, Scripture isn’t talking to either of us and telling us whose interpretation is correct. Your real argument amounts to nothing more than “your interpretation doesn’t agree with MY interpretation” and not “your interpretation doesn’t agree with Scripture”.
“The same problem with relative pronouns in the text.”
#1 - There is no relative pronoun in the key clause of the verse we were discussing. It is only when you read the verse according to your interpretation that the pronoun from the preceding clause would apply to the nouns in the final clause. So you have created the problem yourself, it does not exist in my reading of the verse.
#2 - Another poster already addressed your point and proved that Scripture does use the “which” pronoun to refer to God in other verses. So, even if we were to apply the pronoun from preceding clauses to the final clause, there would be no problem.
You have failed to prove your own contention(s) be factually supported by scripture.
Care to try again?
Going once,
Sold ---one bucket full of failure to substantiate.
You may now collect your winnings.
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.