Bowing the Knee to Rome

The Berean Call ^ | February 1, 2015 | T.A. McMahon

[avenir]

Thanks for chiming in, Professor. I have felt, too, that bickering is pointless, but frank talk can look like bickering. Frank talk about sound doctrine is essential. I don’t see how our discussions will prevent the Obamaci from working more wickedness, since:

“As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever he will he shall turn it”—Proverbs 21:1

Reduced to issues of our patriotism, we all easily gather. It’s the doctrinal issues concerning the truth of the Gospel that will not yield to an easy unity.

[RnMomof7]

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Nope.. there are no records from Hippo .. The NT books were considered scripture during the apostolic church ..different church fathers accepted different books.. each Bishoprick decided its own canon

The New Testament Canon

New Testament Books Treated as Traditional Scripture by Early Writers

Italic type indicates that the writer either does not mention the book or expressed some doubt about the status of the book.

Athanasius (b. 296)	Origen (b. 185)	Irenaeus (b. 130)	Marcion* (b. 85)
Matthew	Matthew	Matthew
Mark	Mark	Mark
Luke	Luke	Luke	Luke
John	John	John
Acts	Acts	Acts
Romans	Romans	Romans	Romans
1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians
Galatians	Galatians	Galatians	Galatians
Ephesians	Ephesians	Ephesians	Ephesians
Philippians	Philippians	Philippians	Philippians
Colossians	Colossians	Colossians	Colossians
1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy	1 Timothy	1 Timothy
2 Timothy	2 Timothy	2 Timothy
Titus	Titus	Titus
Philemon	Philemon	Philemon	Philemon
Hebrews	Hebrews	Hebrews
James	James	James
1 Peter	1 Peter	1 Peter
2 Peter	2 Peter	2 Peter
1 John	1 John	1 John
2 John	2 John	2 John
3 John	3 John	3 John
Jude	Jude	Jude
Revelation**	Revelation	Revelation

* Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.

** The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.

Rome had no canon until the Council ot Trent

[Texas Songwriter]

bttt

[Old Yeller]

Not at all. It is Catholic teaching that we are saved by grace alone.

You know, when I was a Catholic, I used to say things like this, even though it wasn't true. I just wanted the person to stop bothering me about it. Its like a form of taqiyya.

[WXRGina]

Yep.

[dartuser]

All those Catholic lurkers you mention need to do is to study up on the careers of men like Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi.

And we who reject Romanism would urge all those Catholic lurkers to not bother studying the lives of some men, which has absolutely zero chance of producing regeneration ... but, rather, study the scriptures ... which are entirely, effectively and infallibly ... the Word of God.

[humblegunner]

We have much more bigger fish to fry then to worry

Then and than.. different things.

[CynicalBear]

>>Wrong. You misunderstand the word itself -- "immolare" in Latin means "to sacrifice," not necessarily "to kill".<<

Oh no you don't. Try to twist isn't going to work for you. The word used in the statement from Trent is emmolated NOT "immolare".

Emmolate - To kill (an animal, for instance) as a religious sacrifice.

Latin immolātus,

immolāre to sprinkle with meal prior to sacrificing, sacrifice

The statement from Trent is:

"that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross"

Christ is immolated (killed) and it then clarifies. "who once offered Himself".

They are saying that Christ who once offered Himself is once again being killed and offered.

You are participating in a re sacrifice of Christ.

[bunkerhill7]

Goodnight Eusebius and good luck

[WXRGina]

That is why the majority of us active posters are here. We are not expecting that the Catholic apologists up here will embrace the true gospel; we pray for that; but only God can open their eyes to Biblical truth.

We are here for the thousands of Roman Catholics who never respond, who never post, but who always read ... in the hope that some may be seeking the God of the Bible, and turn away from their sins, their idols, their false doctrines, and the god of Rome.

Amen.

[CynicalBear]

>>Why do you think it would be okay for Jesus to speak symbolically about drinking blood, but not okay for him to actually command it?<<

He wasn't talking about eating blood any more then the angel was telling Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or John to literally eat the scroll. He was talking about internalizing the word, the information contained and which nourishes the soul.

[CynicalBear]

How interesting! Thank you for posting that.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of Yeshua’s way.

First, everything a believer does is supposed to be as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Paul was an apostle who had ordained many presbyters.

The local synagogue was a mixture of believers, and unbelievers, and its sole value was the necessary teaching of Torah. They had no authority, any more than the council that gathered at Jerusalem did.

Paul and his company journeyed to Jerusalem to discuss an important matter with his peers.

The distension was at the local synagogue, not in Jerusalem, with Pharisees that were not true believers, that sought to impose false authority on the recent converts.

Circumcision was of no effect after the resurrection.

Peter’s vision had absolutely nothing to do with dietary issues, and he explained that fully himself. It was that he was to call no man unclean.

“Christianity” is not a fulfillment of anything.

Yeshua’s shed blood on the cross is the fulfillment of Passover, and unleavened bread only, and Pentecost was fulfilled seven Sabbaths later as recorded in Acts.

There remain the fall feasts to be fulfilled, and Purim.

There is not nor ever will be a “deliverance” from Torah. The “deliverance” was from the false man made laws of the Pharisees.

Torah is our teaching in righteousness, by which we are conformed to Yeshua. This is stated clearly by Paul in Romans ch 2. It is also set out clearly by Yeshua in Matthew ch 5. If you need more detail it is contained in 1John, the entire epistle is dedicated to this fact.

The old covenant had been violated and had to be renewed in sinless blood. That is what Yeshua did on the cross.

A quick read of Acts 15:21 will show you that it was the intention of the council that the new believers learn Torah in the same fashion in which they had learned it themselves, by being taught every Sabbath day in their synagogue, and that was the reason that they concurred that the new converts be initially instructed in the basics: No Idols, and no blood or strangled meats.

If you desire “deliverance” from Torah, you will get your wish, at the Great White Throne.

.

[piusv]

No, it is the re-presentation of the same one Sacrifice.

[CynicalBear]

>>No, it is the re-presentation of the same one Sacrifice.<<

That's not what the words of Trent say.

[dartuser]

Some originals were written in Aramaic, not greek

Post a link to a facsimile one of these Aramaic texts that pre-dates, say, P46.

[piusv]

Jesus also healed on the Sabbath.

[piusv]

Per the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the cross.

It is the same sacrifice. Christ is not re-sacrificed.

[CynicalBear]

>>Jesus also healed on the Sabbath.<<

Show me a law passed down from God that forbade it. And don't try the "work" approach. As Jesus explained.

Luke 13:15 The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"

The law against eating blood still stood and was even restated in Acts 15.

[dartuser]

It is the same sacrifice. Christ is not re-sacrificed.

Jesus was born ...
Jesus was sacrificed ...
Jesus rose from the dead ...
Jesus ascended into heaven ...

So lets go back to step 2 and celebrate that one perpetually?