Posted on 09/03/2014 6:36:07 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
I don't know.
I've asked many of them over the last year at least, to answer these questions and as of yet, have not had any takers.
I think one person at least responded to the post but did not answer the questions with data and facts.
These are the questions:
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
"Listen to the Church." --Jesus
Show us the verse where Jesus makes that command.
Or is that just another out of context snippet of Scripture?
Straw man argument. No one who believes Sola Scriptura would make that nonsensical statement. "Religious facts" are happening today, all over the world. They're not making it into the Bible because the Bible already has all the "religious facts" necessary for salvation through faith in Christ. God decided what got in, and what didn't. If it didn't get it, we don't need it.
“If it didn’t get it” should be “If it didn’t get in”
Oh, that - which really means Rome as the One True Church®, and as the supreme authority - is extrapolated out of the premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
As if this is what Scripture teaches, which it manifestly does not, as may be explained to any RC that defends it.
Ha ha (I found this humorous)
By pointing out TRUE FACTS FROM HISTORY are found on 'noted anti-Catholic websites' doesn’t help you merely wave away the SINS of the MOST POWERFUL men in their own little world.
So you guys are allowed to MAKE UP stuff that ain't?GOD-like of you.
And how was Luther an impenitent adulterer and murderer except in dissent from Rome, and how are popes cleared from being manifestly impenitent scoundrels and adulterers and even murderers?
The Roman Catholic Church should stick to milking the biblically illiterate. It's bigotry against ANYONE against her version of worship fits right into a the warning the bible is rife with*. Plus the sense of entitlement.
Like these guys?
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Catholic church history is replete with murderers, adulterers, and scoundrels.
Why do they get a pass with *They're just sinners like the rest of us*? when you guys expect "any number of Protestant from martin Luther down" to live lives as pure as Jesus in order to validate their message.
If the lifestyle of the church leaders is the criteria for determining that, the Catholic church is in WAY bigger trouble than any of those Protestant pastors from Luther on down.
It condemns Catholicism and the Catholic church far more strongly because those who Catholics consider Protestant church leaders were never elected by their churches and put into positions of authority by the church. They are just considered church leaders by Catholics who simply cannot conceive of a church without a figurehead to follow.
Catholics are so conditioned to following men that it is beyond their comprehension that others do not do the same.
Be it known, for the record, I do NOT follow Luther, or Calvin, nor any other man in a leadership position within any church. I follow Jesus Christ alone.
If their views and theology happen to agree with mine, it's simply because they use the Bible for the basis of their beliefs. It is NOT because I follow their teachings.
Indeed. The deformation of the church was progressive, but the church of Rome stands in fundamental contrast to the NT church as manifested in Scripture, which,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office, as per Rome which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be 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.
2. Never promised taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For 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.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more .
You got post number 911.
Oh my!
I’m in TROUBLE and linked to AL SHARPTON in the same sentence!
Whatever shall I do???
How dare you to put Koresh and Billy Graham together . Billy Graham has led more people to Jesus Christ than you or anyone else. Koresh led people astray just like others do. BTW, Catholics do not have a right to be critical of anyone with the junk going on in Catholic circles. Why aren’t more of you posting the truth about that?
That command or admonition is not found in scripture. As a matter of fact, we are told to check what they or anyone teaches against shat scripture teaches.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
That "listen to the church" is cultic in origin. It's not from scripture.
Oh no, you are missing the point. There simply cannot be a whole spectrum of “truths” based on Scripture ranging from the likes of David Koresh to the benign versions of the Grahams and the Joel Osteens. The latter two both have attracted large audiences. Jim Jones too had a large following of people who left family and friends to join him believing they were being led to Jesus. So too did Robert Schuller. They all amassed massive amounts of wealth to live comfortably for themselves and their family. No Mother Theresa lifestyle for any of these except television celebrity.
Oh come on now. You forget a couple.
The pope is the Antichrist and The Vatican bank financed Hitler.
There I fixed your post.
I think I was in Salt Lake City at Temple Square on 9-11-2009
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.