Posted on 10/30/2015 11:11:35 AM PDT by fishtank
Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ
By Eric Davis
OCTOBER 28, 2015
This Saturday, October 31, commemorates nearly 500 years since one of the greatest movements of God in church history; the Protestant Reformation. Up to the time of the Reformation, much of Europe had been dominated by the reign of Roman Catholicism. To the populace was propagated the idea that salvation was found under Rome and her system alone.
But as the cultural and theological fog cleared in Europe and beyond, God's people gained a clarity that had been mostly absent for centuries. The Reformers gained this clarity from keeping with a simple principle: sola scritpura, or, Scripture alone. As they searched the word of God, they discovered that Rome deviated radically on the most critical points of biblical Christianity. With one mind, God's people discerned from Scripture that, tragically, Roman Catholicism was a desecration to the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecripplegate.com ...
Who can blame them in light of th4e abuse of power the Catholic church was engaged in at the time?
Where did Jesus ever establish the church to be a dictatorial governing body over ALL men wielding political power?
"He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."
George Bancroft"John Calvin was the virtual founder of America."
Leopold von Ranke""Those who consider Calvin only as a theologian fail to recognize the breadth of his genius. The editing of our wise laws, in which he had a large share, does him as much credit as his Institutes. . . . [S]o long as the love of country and liberty is not extinct amongst us, the memory of this great man will be held in reverence."
Jean Jacques Rousseau
"Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much respect."
John Adams
“Martin Luther did not invent Protestantism.”
Yes, he did.
“He merely spearheaded the revolution to erase centuries of error and outright heresy from the RC grip on Europe.”
That’s completely false. Luther introduced error and outright heresy.
“Sound doctrine exists in the Word and is available to all.”
Yet even Luther realized that everyone could interpret the scriptures differently. And they do. How’s that old joke go? Put 10 Baptists (or any Protestants) in a room, give them one verse to interpret and you’ll get 11 interpretations.
“The only thing “invented†is the tortuous contortions of man made “traditionâ€.”
There were no tortuous contortions. That’s a Protestant fantasy invented to bolster the myth of the necessity of the Protestant Revolt.
“Give me the Word to stand on, its all I need.”
So you read Hebrew and Greek, right? No, you depend on translations like most everyone else here, right? So, it isn’t the Word you depend on but someone else’s understanding of the Word.
John Calvin: The True Father of Communism: https://books.google.com/books?id=x5qNNAAACAAJ&dq=john+calvin+founder+of++communism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMI5YjdjtjtyAIVQ-JjCh07egdy
Worth the read. I read 20 years ago, Taylor makes some good points. Read a book rather than just reading a few quotes.
Ain’t it the truth! Or SMTA (Scriptural Minds Think Alike)
Clear observation of what I see posted by FRoman Catholics daily.
Yet we know that there were texts whose inspired status were not questioned, despite the lack of a formal canonization process. 2 Peter 3:16 tells us that Peter accepted Paul's writings as inspired.
OK, so now you claim that the OT is insufficient. But these are the only scriptures Paul knew when he wrote to Timothy. So which is it? Sufficient or insufficient?
I don't recall ever saying the OT was sufficient. If it were, why would the Holy Spirit inspire the NT writers to add more scripture?
Still is, according to the Jews, for whom the Canon is closed and who expect no further revelation except in the person of the Messiah. Much of the prophecy that Christians accept and interpret as referring to Christ simply is not considered Messianic prophecy by the Jews. And the Christian interpretation is not fully explicated in the NT.
You are Catholic, right? You must realize that the Jewish position is wrong. Jesus Christ being God's Messiah is something on which Catholics and Protestants agree.
I said they ignore large chunks of the Gospels and twist others to fit their agenda.
I was aware that you were talking about portions of the Gospels when I wrote the response. I didn't word it very well. But to say that Protestants ignore large chunks of the Gospels is just wrong. They just don't accept what Catholics read into the Gospels.
That works too.
Probably better.
Since we use Scripture, we get the same answers.
That’s the beauty of Scripture. It’s written down and it doesn’t change.
“since the Bible doesn’t teach “sola Scriptura”, anywhere. Not even close.”
John 20:30-31
Acts 17:11
Galatians 1:6-9
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Revelation 22:18
...Or shall we say lacking pride of church, not as a church which prides itself on it's great intellect, depth, texture, richness, etc. The true believer knows that there is simplicity in a sincere and unpolluted belief in Christ. There are not great garnishments.
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
Pride is the opposite of all of what is taught in the Bible. The great pride you take in your Church strongly reminds me of this verse to the Church of Laodicia which the Lord isn't at all pleased with.
Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. ,
It is interesting and very telling that when in the book of Revelation Jesus Christ gives His all important and encompassing messages to the the seven churches, many in fault and some doing well, He says absolutely nothing about a central church that the Churches were suppose to be all importantly answering to. He says nothing about a Pope, His mother Mary being central to salvation or saying, as to the Catholics, the all important rosary, praying to saints, no nothing at all that alludes to their even being the organization of the Catholic Church or even anything remotely resembling it. He says nothing about the importance of adhereing to many central major doctrines of the CC today. There wasn’t an orginized Catholic Church or it could not have gone without mention as it would have been viewed as all important as the Catholics today think it is.
Excellent points.
The NT can be read in vain to find the RCC.
Why do I say this? Because I tried and failed, as your post describes so well.
Thanks again for your post.
I’m still amused at the victim mentality.
Those were all Catholic Churches. There weren’t any other churches until Luther did his thing.
I see: so you believe (like most strawman Caths) that SS must mean that this was a historical constant?
And that it means that nothing else is to be used in determining Truth on faith and morals?
And that it negates the magisterial office and its Scriptural authority?
And that the sufficiency aspect only refers to its formal aspect?
And that if souls are to ascertain the veracity of teaching by searching the Scriptures then it turns every man into being a pope?
And do you deny as that as progressively written (God giving more grace), Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced?
And that Scripture provided for additional writings being added to its body?
And that common men discerned both men and writings as being of God, without an infallible magisterium, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation? And which thus provides for a progressively established canon?
And that the Cath alternative to SS is what the Bible manifestly teaches, in which the church and what it says is the supreme law (sola ecclesia), under the premise of (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility?
And that (as RCS state and argue) this is necessary for souls to correctly know what Scripture consists of and means?
And under that premise it is impossible for Scripture to contradict what (at least) the supreme magisterium promulgates as Truth?
And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching on faith and morals by examination of warrant for such (for that reason) - at the least for "infallible teaching." For to do so would be to doubt the infallible claims of Rome for herself, and thus "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS)
And that RCs are to render religious assent (excluding public dissent) even to papal social teaching, such as Laudato si', or that they are to do what evangelicals do in examining the warrant for such obedience?
These are questions you need to answer for your "not even close" denial.
So you hold that SS must exclude such helps as the light of nature as well as the leading of the Spirit and charismatic gifts, as long as all such are subject to testing by the Scriptures?
And that SS also excludes any allowance of tradition, or that allowance of all such is subject to Scripture as supreme, which provides for tradition?
And that when Rome speaks infallibly, she is speaking as the wholly God-inspired apostles did, and thus what she says tradition says is equally authoritative and binding?
And yet catholics have voted for more liberal presidents than conservative ones.
Not when you look at the voting patterns of Catholics.
And aside from what individual Catholics have admitted to me themselves with their own mouths and told poll takers, it's clear that Catholics vote more liberal as the most heavily Catholic areas traditionally vote in the most liberal politicians.
There's no legitimate way to blame shift that away from Catholics.
The 1973 SCOTUS consisted of 8 Protestants and 1 Catholic and we all know how they changed the culture.
Agreed that the Protestants on the SCOTUS at the time may have been nominal. But I would also argue that faithful Catholics are not the ones voting for the likes of Obama.
So Christ's authority only consists of those items?
No, I didn't say that; I merely mentioned a few examples which refutes the nonsense idea that "Christ never delegated his authority to men"; He obviously did.
The claim was made 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."' was given to the Apostles.
I must have missed that in the interim; by whom was this claim made? (I certainly didn't make it.)
'ALL' of it given? Don't think so despite the claims of Catholics.
Again: you'll have to show me where that claim was made--and it's a bit broad-brush of you to say that "Catholics" (implying "Catholics in general") make that claim, yes?
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.